Re: Objects and Relations

On Jan 31, 12:24 pm, "Keith H Duggar" <dug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David BL wrote:
Keith H Duggar wrote:
To me you seem quite intelligent; so don't act
stupid. Take a chill pill and stop using words like
"onus". Do that and you can probably learn much here and
some of us (certainly including me) may also learn much
from the process.

What usage of "onus" are you referring to?

Umm ...

"You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the onus of
proof often depends on the nature of the claim rather
that who is making it."

The general tone of that sentence (and your posts) mesh with
"onus" into a precocious whole.

Unfortunately I have already developed a bad case of cynicism. In my
first post to this newsgroup I was taken back with the aggressive
nature of posters like Bob.

My objective is certainly not to insult anyone. That quote above was
making a point, associated with the asymmetry in ease of proving
universally quantified statements compared to merely finding a counter
example.

Consider the statement "Formal system X is consistent". Can this be
proven true? Not generally! It is more of an unproven conjecture.
In that sense the onus is instead to show that X is inconsistent.
How is this use of "onus" precocious?

[snip]

.