What makes you think they’re unrelated? Could be they were already present before the first humans moved out of Africa (in fact, if they’re independent that would mean those early humans didn’t already have religion…which would answer your question).
Or maybe they all had schizophrenic voices in their heads, à la Julian Jaynes…
No, it is not. Argumentum ad populum does not work. Get that through your thick skull.
So, I must now conclude that you’re a hopeless troll.
However, government in it self doesn’t imply coercion. I define government by it’s basic function, broad scale management of a given management of a region. If there is an organization that helps to manage a given region, I would call this a government. This could be incorrect.
It’s absolutely relevant, I never gave the issue much thought until someone asserted it wasn’t. You propose the hypothesis, it’s up to who ever proposes it to defend it. That’s reasonable.
Challenge the status quo, it’s up to the person challenging it to provide a case. Otherwise, they are just a crackpot. Note I don’t suggest the public is right, only the public doesn’t give a shit and won’t change unless it has a reason to do so. That’s reasonable.
I’m even happy to concede I don’t absolutely know if governments are necessary, I don’t know how a society would operate without “some” management. The internet does provide us with a unique opportunity to explore new models, one were borders are obsolete and is for the most part as close to a social anarchy one can come. It remains to be seen where it serves to promote wide spread free speech and free association, or whether it will fall into the common proverbial land baron and surf system.
And I would thank you for the reference and look into it. You don’t seem to be the issue. The assertion that it’s an absolute fact we don’t need governments
However it was asserted as fact that we don’t need government. This is not my field, but I’m at least somewhat interested now as this works. However the argument presented to me is follows
We don’t need goverment
We don’t need to prove a negative claim
And sorry, that doesn’t fucking work.
I would not dismiss my skepticism that we don’t need a government. I find it implausible that larger populations measured in the 10s of millions could be maintained without an working well maintained infrastructure. There is support for the idea immediate loss of the infrastructure (rail, roads, power, communications) would result in loss in the ability to feed larger populations, Specifically I remember vaguely (sorry I can’t remember the name of the study) the study done in the UK where it was estimated that the best they would support without water, power, and rail was roughly 90% of their present population. This seems to be consistent with the population before the industrial revolution.
If you or someone else can find a way to maintain the basic infrastructure without a central authority, then wow, that would be a good reason to consider adopting wide spread social change.
Again, to challenge the status quote, it’s up to the person who challanges it to provide a good case to change, otherwise, people don’t change, it’s too much work.
No. Teapots don’t enter into the picture of our understanding of the universe until they are proposed. If someone proposes NO teapots around Saturn, it is up to them to prove it, just as it’s up to someone who prove the positive there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. The best we can say, for a fact, is there is no evidence of a teapot orbiting Saturn. I don’t know if there is or not, teapots don’t enter into the picture for me.
There is no practical value asserting the existence or non-existence of teapots orbiting Saturn, just like there is no practical value asserting that babies are not born with specific beliefs as near as we are aware they are NOT BORN WITH BELIEFS. In lue of cultural influence, they learn through the environment, through experience, and once there is enough in the way of cognitive skills to even understand the question, only then does the question whether the default is mystical, natural, or apathetic enter into the picture. Surely you can understand this.
If someone proposes that there is NO teapot orbiting Saturn, well the first question asked would be, why the hell would there be a teapot orbiting Saturn. The second question, can one prove there is no teapot orbiting Saturn. The burnder of proof would be the same whether there is a positive or native claim, a survey of all the material larger than 30cm^2. However practical application of this enters into the picture, who the hell cares if there are or are not teapots orbiting Saturn.
If an atheist wants to convert a religious follower, the theist is going to expect a good case why they should reject their religion. It doesn’t matter the fact that existence of gods is a positive claim, a person isn’t going to change their lifestyle based on this argument
You have no proof
I don’t need evidence, you do
Reject religion
As you can see, even though the theist can’t logically backup the existence of gods, without a reason to change, the assertion is worthless. That’s the problem with people and social groups, they are reistant to change. Logic doesn’t necessarily apply to humans.
This is rather why the person proposing the idea, hypothesis, or theory has the burden of responsibility of the person proposing it.
Which is rather why I included “clan” wars into the picture, as a clan, at least how I define it, is a rudimentary government. But again, I define government by it’s function.
Well, if one is asserting for a fact that one doesn’t need governments, it’s reasonable to ask for someone present their case, because unless we can see it in practice, it’s not a fact. Governments at least have the benefit of existing in all shapes and sizes. Does that mean we need them? I concede no. But we can see how they operate, how they employ their resources, how they manage people. Again to quote Billy Bragg, you can borrow ideas but you can’t borrow situations.
In order for me to accept that we don’t need governments, I would need to see a working model. I’ll gladly accept a relativly large commune. Such a study DOES have some value, and it’s something that one could try if they so desired. In fact, it wouldn’t shock me if one already exists in Oregon.
But again, if you propose a change to the social norm, and you expect people to even consider it, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes the change, otherwise
Everyone is wrong
I am right
I don’t have to prove it
And call me silly, but this is BEYOND childish.
It’s only Argumentum ad populum if you propose that the majority is right. I propose that the majority doesn’t give a shit if they are wrong unless you can present a case that they are.
Keep in mind that we are talking sociology, a study which includes statistics indicating social norms
Which come to think about it
“No baby is born beliving in god(s)”
is the ULTIMATE Argumentum ad populum, and ultimately worthless as we clearly go through stages of mental development, and no only learn from our parents and peers, but from experience and our surroundings.
But if you can’t back up your assertion with facts, and must resort to intellectual dishonesty, I must conclude that you have nothing to offer in understanding this subject.
Again your argument is this
I have a negative claim
I don’t have to prove it
It doesn’t work, and doesn’t answer the question, if what you say is true, then where do theistic, mystical, or shamanistic beliefs come from.
This messages has been bought to you by monopolistic entity. You want to make music, you can’t make music without us. Trust the monopoly to manage your music for ideological integrity. Panhandling is now illegal, and so is self distribution , trust the monopolistic entity (LULZ).
I think it ate my reply. So I have to redo this.
The Ugric languages, at least from my understanding, stem from people isolated from the rest of Eurasia. The Australic family is rather isolated as well. We can find many things in common with the Indo-European languages, and there is a working theory about a common protolanguage.
The spread of a common system of belief rather depends on language, which seems to have really developed to refined enough levels after the various exodites from Africa.
A mistake you seem to be making is theism doesn’t equal religion. It’s something else earlier that you said about children having different gods or beliefs than their parents that somewhat bugged me after the fact. Children could formulate their own relationship with the numinous, and either be encouraged to adopt the parent’s preference, or told that their relationship is part of the accepted family faith.
I don’t report to actually know man’s language skills 10,000+ years ago, but language isn’t required to look up in the sky and antropomorphize the moon as a watchful eye, or see a shadow, or a rabbit like the Mayan or Japanese people (don’t ask me why). To be clear. Language isn’t required for rudimentary hero worship, or thinking your hero has some mystical connection with the world you lack.
Religion requires at the very least reasonably developed language skills enough so one can communicate abstract concepts, as well as oral tradition. Again, I don’t know if 13,500 there was even a proreligion, which is not the same thing as protheistic, mystical, or shamanstic beliefs.
Here’s a bullet list the way I see the possibilities of man’s first conclusions of the world around him
Apathetic
proto-naturalistic
Mystical
We can see children have a natural curiosity about the world around them, so I doubt early man was apathetic. I doubt (2) as anecdotal evidence is still good enough for your average modern man. I’m still leaning toward (3). Anthropomorphizing the natural world seems to be a common trend in order to better relate to it, and as such believing that storms are punishment or reward for behaver would seem to be an apt conclusion without understanding of how weather works. The sun a gift from some unseen entity or force again strikes me as a logical conclusion if early man even thought about it.
As such, while I’m certainly clear in my opinion that we are born atheists is a worthless assertion, I’m leaning toward rudimentary mysticism as being the default. I could be totally wrong.
That could be the norm and we are just taught to manage our sub -vocalizations. Still there are more models for god(s) than a whispering/booming voice.
Oh, I misunderstood - I thought you mean “organization” as in “the act of organizing”, not “an organization”. The latter isn’t needed; the market (large numbers of individuals acting individually, coordinated by prices) is capable of organizing; an organization (central planner) only makes things less organized.
The rules of logic dictate that the positive assertion is the one that has to be proved; I suspect you’ve heard something like “it’s up to who ever proposes the hypothesis to defend it” somewhere and misunderstood “proposes” to mean “first mentions”, regardless of whether they’re taking the positive or negative side. But there’s no point going back and forth on this.
What’s wrong with this: “I find it implausible that large populations measured in the 10s of millions could be fed without a working, well-maintained food-production structure - thus I’m convinced that large populations can only exist in Communist countries where government is in charge of the food supply.”
There certainly is. Humans don’t operate under the rules of pure logic. If you propose something, positive or negative, it’s reasonable to expect someone to present a case to back it up, otherwise it’s simply a wacky assertion. If I were to follow the rules of logic, I could assert there was no language 10,000 years ago. If I presented it as a fact, it’s reasonable to you or anyone to expect me to be able to back it up. Not that I know much about linguistics, but I’m sure you see my point. Again with the teapot, I can assert there is no teapot around Saturn, it’s pretty reasonable to ask what it is.
Proposing a wide spread social change, that requires a case, not just a case, a damn good case.
There is no evidence of god(s)
It’s up to you to prove your gods
If you can’t, reject god(s) and religions that worship them.
Logically sound, but useless. While I am an atheist, I don’t care if people believe in god(s). If god(s) exist, they don’t interact with me and as such are not worthy of my attention.
You could say the rules of logic dictate that those with a negative claim doesn’t have to back it up, and as such the atheist or the anarchist don’t have to defend their position. Technically true, but if you assert a negative as a fact, sorry you’re going to have to back it up even no teapot orbiting Saturn, that that that information would have any real reliance.
Again, what you say would work fine in a bubble, but not if you want to propagate an idea.
Still, I’m skeptical such a system would work without the respective organized people getting together to hammer out broad scale issues, even if it is in the form of a rudimentary council with no formal leadership. I would have to see it in action, a working model. I think that’s a reasonable expectation. Again, I’ll gladly take a commune as an example. I plead total ignorance on how such a system would function.
And yet again, you assert an organization (central planning) isn’t necessary only makes things less organized. How would it work otherwise? I see this as a reasonable question, and shouldn’t be responded to with “I don’t have to prove a negative”. I don’t accuse you of this, but it strikes me as a very cowardly response, amazingly rude, and supremely childish.
Well, obviously isn’t true. It goes back to my concerns about infrastructure. Water, roads, power transport.
Case in point, Appomattox river (National Geographic, August 1980 IIRC), polluted with Kepone. Again IIRC the “solution” was to ignore the problem and let the silt layers pile up and bury the problem. All well and good, except the the river is required not only for industrial waste, but drinking water and shipping. Result, industry suffers, water quality suffered, fishing suffered, and they’re still stuck with polluted driver. Near as I’m aware they don’t actually have a resolution to the problem, since removing the kepone saturated silt would require releasing it into the water supply faster. Dreading the driver isn’t a solution as well, same issue. The only real solution I can think of would be far too costly to consider, which would basically mean moving the river, canning up the exposed silt until the kepone breaks down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepone - wiki was nice enough to have a page on it.
The government response, which came too late, was to ban the use of kepone. How would such an issue be addressed in a market anarchy system? Who do I complain to? Is it expected that the population votes with their dollars? I’m not saying our current system is all that spiffy, only questioning how would this be handled without at the very least an organization do deal with public health or environmental hazards.
No, it isn’t. It’s called an argumentum ad populum/numerum/verecundiam, and it is a fallacy, that has nothing to do with an argument’s veracity.
-Jon
It strikes me as supremely cowardly to rest faith in the government, merely because it has monopolized certain functions, if one wishes to take that avenue…
-Jon
If what you said is 100% than the field of psychology, which operates based on social norms. Come to think about it, any field that uses statistics or people is invalid.
Here how it works
Man: People you are wrong, we don’t need goverment
People: What the hell?
Man: Prove to me you need a goverment.
People: No, why don’t we need one.
Man: I don’t have to prove a negative, and your exclamation suggests you assert the positive, burden of proof is yours.
People: Bugger off
You propose an idea, positive of negative, the burden of proof is on you
You propose wide spread social change, for the people to care, the burden of proof is on you
I consider it very reasonably my self.
And that’s invalid. It doesn’t matter one bit if they believe they need one. THEY have to show it. It doesn’t matter, do you understand? Does. Not. Matter.
If they are so terrified that they cannot provide the reasons, that’s THEIR problem.
But that’s just a convention. I can propose a correct idea and not bother explaining why it’s correct. Or I can explain it to you and still you don’t get it.
Whether an idea is correct or not has, logically speaking, nothing to do with burden-of-proof.
The point is, you wonder at the irrational beliefs of theists but you have the same irrational beliefs about government…
Which is rather why I conceded ignorance, and asked how would organization not logically follow to an organization.
This is why I asked to see such a society operate. This is why I asked for information such evidence, like a functional commune 200 people or more. This I consider to be a very reasonable expectation.
I have very little faith in “the government”. However I am 100% ignorant as to what form organization would take if not an organization.
You could call it supremely cowardly if you like. However, asking what is the alternative is a reasonable expectation.
But when it comes to the loss of infrastructure, I certainly am a coward.
When it comes to prior events in society that have lead to land barons and surfdom, I am a coward.
Without some force other than faith in the people to prevent the formation of truly supreme monopolizes, I am certainly a coward.
Would this happen? I have no idea, I have no idea how it would work, I’m asking. Show me a working model so I can see how such a system operates.
Which is only slightly related to the subject of atheism being the default, which in it’s very nature seems to be based on an assertion that no baby is born with belief in any god. This is not something I see as a fact, impossible to prove, and ultimately meaningless as the only thing that matters is what is the default conclusion one reaches when one reaches maturity without outside cultural influence.
The default positions I can think of are
Apathetic
Naturalistic
Mystical (proto-theistic, shamanistic, mystical)
If we are born with no beliefs what so ever, where do these beliefs come from? A tribe certainly needs language skillls for the idea of beliefs to propagate, so which comes first, internal rationalizations or language? I find it hard to accept that man would be (1) apathetic since he depends on the environment for certain cues, and finds the full moon handy, or detrimental depending on the local widelife.
Does this develop after language, and follows some pattern of ancestor worship, where the parents or tribe to a baby are the care givers and supreme authority?
Or, do such beliefs come from hero worship and man’s need to ORGANIZE. Not just anthropomorphize the world around him in order to better relate to it, such as perceiving the moon as a eye, a man, a shadow, a rabbit, and by extension assigning a mystical order, but putting order where it doesn’t exist and believing that a given man has some connection with the world, and there by the first need.
(1) strikes me as unlikely
(2) strikes me as requiring a ton of information an observation beyond what oral tradition and cave paintings can relay.
(3) seems the most likely. Without a natural explanation, depending on anecdotal evidence, without influence of others (3) seems to me most likely to be the default conclusion.
Are you aware of any studies in this regard, mainly children isolated from society at a young age, or perhaps being specifically raised without introduction to refined ecclesiastical systems? Is there any evidence to suggest (1) over (2) over (3)?
This is a very interesting question raised on this form, one which I hear from time to time by atheists promoting atheism. It has a major fallacy
ALL KNOWLEDGE IS TAUGHT BY OTHER PEOPLE
And I’m sorry, that’s bullshit. It precludes the existence of innovation, and learning from the environment or experience. If true, language would not exist, or fire, culture would not form. At some point in pre-history, these things were created.
Which leads me back to my first question, if atheism is the default where does theism come from?
I think it’s a very valid question worthy of an answer. What leads one to this conclusion?
You propose an idea, it’s reasonable for me to establish why it’s so, or what leads you up to that belief. That’s discussion.
FYI: I don’t think care about theists. I don’t care if someone believes in gods. If I’m to support freedom of thought, and freedom of expression, I must accept someone’s choice to believe in god(s). God(s) IMHO are not the issue, demagogues are, those who use use emotion to get authority over others. If god(s) don’t exist, they have no influence on anyone’s lives, but the people who act on their behalf, those can have an issue to. But as you might imagine, religion doesn’t hold a monopoly to attracting demagogues.
Look I’m an atheist, but I don’t naturally follow that atheists are correct or rational. In fact, I find many atheists to be nuts and just as irritatingly dogmatic about their specific lack of belief, as theists. I’m presently observing two organizations that have fallen back to an autocratic leaders up and are preforming excommunications based on members not having the right kind of lack of belief, or by challenging the leader.
However, if I’m promoting atheism, there are some very valid questions from theists.
If if you without god(s), where to do get your moral code of conduct from?
If you are without a church, how do you meet people?
If you don’t have faith in god, what do you have faith in?
You have to understand from a theist perspective, someone who was raised in a religious environment and taught as a child god(s) exist, thinking about god(s) not existing, or simply not bothering to believe in them, is outside their realm of experience. Asking these questions is actually a sign of intelligence, not stupidity.
But we can observe atheists. They exist in the natural environment, they raise kids, have jobs, they do things. There even religions that don’t preclude the existence of god(s). A few have taken it upon them selves to form organizations or as I describe them churches. The question whether man needs religion or god(s) in order to have a moral code of conduct can be answered through observation.
The need for organization to extend to an organization seems to be the norm. I’m not aware of any society that didn’t form a government. I was raised in a society with a government, operating without one is outside my realm of experience.
Which is why I’m asking how it would work. You consider that to be irrational?
When asking this question, mostly what I get is, “I don’t have to prove a negative”. Respectfully, that’s bullshit. In order for me to believe it, I’d have to see it, or see a reasonable model. My main skepticism is how is the infrastructure maintained without central authority. That’s a reasonable question. The answers I get, is “we don’t have to prove it, we don’t have to prove a negative”. Bullshit.
We can’t observe god(s). We can’t see them, hear them, measure them, or test them. They are the ultimate unprovable proposition.
We can observe religions, those who follow ritual and dogma. Most are theistic in nature. We can weigh the benefits of membership, or reject it.
We can observe governments. We can see types of services they manage, and how effective they are doing so. We can measure the level of disease, see the distribution of wealth, how they deal with heath, environment, and social issues. We can adopt new ideas from others and incorporate them.
I’ve not observed the lack of government for populations in the millions. In fact, I’ve not seen it tested on the commune level. Are you aware of commune 200+ people or so that operates without some form of central authority, like a council?
Being skeptical, asking questions does not make me irrational, just as the theist is not irrational because he’s confronted with something outside realm of experience. Actually, it gives me some hope when the theist starts to ask basic questions that he/she will go back to church, and question whether or not church membership services to make them a better person. But if you are going to propose something outside someone’s realm of experience, and they ask questions about how it would work, and you can’t answer them to any degree, as in say “I don’t have to prove a negative”, and then call them irrational, you’re going to have to expect to be called a crack pot. If you are going to propose a major social change based p ONLY on the lack of evidence, that’s beyond irrational, that’s nuts. But if you have a better way, if you propose a huge social change that actually WOULD have benefits, by all means share them. Given the choice between an unknown, and the status quo, man chooses the status quo. It takes not just a reason, but a DAMN good one to change. Is that irrational? Absolutely. News flash, people are irrational.
What? Statistics merely describes what ideas people hold. It says nothing about whether they’re correct or not.
Regarding ridding of government, read those books I mentioned.
-Jon
Fair enough.
I’m calling you irrational because the arguments you’re using to explain the allegedly need for government make as much sense as theists explaining why revealed religion A, B, or C is the true one while all the rest are false.
You say :
How does the internet and the microelectronics industry which enables it work ? Have they been centrally planned ?
Well, barons were the government people had to put up with at that time. Oh, and I think your government has used conscription several times - conscription is one of the worst kinds of slavery you know…
Are you talking about anti-trust ? Do you think that a monopolistic government protects you from monopolistic businesses which can’t really exist in a free-market anyway ?
I think your views on government are contradictory, so they can hardly be called rational. You just take for granted that voluntary organization is not possible despite the fact that there’s voluntary organization all around you.
If they are so terrified that they cannot provide the reasons, that’s THEIR problem?
This doesn’t sound like a rational attempt to promote a huge social change. This sounds like adopting a not position in order to gratify one’s ego and using the convention that one doesn’t have to prove the not position. Sorry that’s nuts. It suggests that you are the supreme authority and the world should gravitate to your point of view just because you say so. Further, it by extension suggests you believe your self to be outside society all together, above them, and have exclusive rights to suggest a new world order. You by extension want to be the government.
Man: We should adopt this untested social system
People: Why?
Man: Because you are ignorant to it’s benefits
People: What are the benefits?
Man: I don’t have to prove that, if you can’t see them, that’s your problem.
Sorry, doesn’t work. You want a change, a huge change, you need to provide a reason to do so. You don’t have authority over man, man must have the right to be given a choice, not though some act of logical dynamism, in order to preserve freedom of thought and expression.
The choice you present is
Status Quo
no government
If you propose (2) over (1), you have to come up with some reason or rational behind it. It’s not “their” problem except in your own mind, your problem doesn’t anywhere except your own mind. Note, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem with the Status Quo, there ALWAYS is a problem with the Status Quo. What are the problems YOU observe that would be resolved by going (2) over one.
At present the only viable solutions I know of are
(1) Propose a change to the Status Quo
(2) Pick another Status Quo
(3) Become a hermit
Case in point, fighting to break the cable/cable modem monopoly in a city. Cable was effectively a monopoly where I lived.
High prices
No standard price schedule
No means of requesting channels
Slow to upgrade segments of the network
Getting another conglomerate in the region was not an option, none of the other companies wanted to. The solution that we agreed upon was municipal cable and internet. Took much in the way of fighting, but the major win was proving that the city could actually save money laying a fiber optic network and using it to read the power meters, and could further cash in on providing extra services.
(1) well prices on TV are within dollars of each other. Cable internet access prices are somewhat the same, but with the added bonus of offering tiered services, so one now has a choice of dialup or 1.5/256k access at $20/month.
(2) Prices are now clearly advertised
(3) This hasn’t changed
(4) The monopoly, after much advertising promoting the monopoly, gave up and actually upgraded their network to support internet.
See, problem, proposed solution, execution, resolution. Prices didn’t change as much as expected, but quality of service improved greatly.
But the monopoly at the very least did their best to come up with REASONS why one should pick 1 cable system over two. They were not very good reasons IMHO but they at least tried some reasoning, among the most notable and factual was the fact that it would double the amount of cable lines affecting aesthetics and structural integrity of the poles, as well as decreasing the amount of space for the underground systems. I can’t deny these as being facts. Poles now have an extra line. The extra weight could have been a factor in a pole or two breaking, not sure if that’s a fact but it’s at least remotely possible.
But at the end of the day, it was the burden of those who wanted change to present a case for it, a good case. The fact that there were no working examples of cable competition was a negative factor. And guess what, how there is an example. I can’t claim the competition lowered prices to a significant degree, but I can claim quality of service improved.
No. You propose change, YOU need to provide the reasons to do so. If your system is untested, your burden is even higher. Unless you want to live in a proverbial logical bubble and not bother to make a change to the status quo.
I concede ignorance. What you propose is outside my realm of experience. It’s reasonable for me to ask some questions, and it’s reasonable for you to backup your assertion with facts, information, and example. Ultimately that’s what reason is, the ability to take information AND USE IT.
Just like when you propose
NO. ONE. IS. BORN. BELIEVING. IN. ANY. GOD.
No one is born with much in the way of any information, and as such beliefs doesn’t even enter the picture. Beliefs are acquired through others, through our experience, through our observation. As such, being born with nothing has no meaning, we have no information and not anything in the way of cognitive or reasoning skills to even ponder the nature of the universe. To us, the cosmos is what we can see, the room/cave/hut/ground we are born in. Such a label is meaningless until such time as we can even understand the question proposed, and as such what is the default conclusion.
(1) Apathetic
(2) Naturalistic
(3) Mystical
Refined theistic models are clearly passed down from others. But without that information, what do we actually default to? Why do YOU propose the answer is either (1) or (2) over (3). If it is (1) or (2) and (3) comes later, where does (3) come from?
I think this is a reasonable question given your assertion that no one is born with beliefs in god(s).
You can assert that babies are born without belief in gods, but without evidence that assertion is meaningless.
Yes.
Now then: are you finished trolling, little one? If so, do run along and leave us adults alone.
Actually, it’s more like this: we refuse to submit to the use of force by statists and we demand their use of force be justified in trying to hinder our organization into free markets. Nonsense like “it’s what the ‘people’ want!” or “but it’ll benefit you, really!” is of no consequence.
-Jon
If you want someone to adopt an idea, it’s up to you to present a case. It has nothing to do with whether the idea is correct or not, without the case, you can not reasonable expect someone to entertain your idea without one.
I think that’s VERY reasonable expectation.
It’s hardly Argumentum ad populum when I’m not proposing the people are correct. For people to change, they need a reason, a reason beyond “I don’t need to prove a negative”. What happens, people don’t change.
Case in point
Man: You can’t be sitting there
Sitting man: Why not, is this your seat
Man: I don’t need to justify a negative
See, doesn’t work.