Missed this because I wasn't tagged, but since I was bored...
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.
Common misconception. Burden of proof is always on the positive claim.
Every claim is a positive claim. To make a claim is to assert a truism about reality. If I said "god does not exist" I am asserting that we live in a godless universe. That claim does not get a pass because I phrased it as a negative.
B: There is no evidence for a flying spaghetti monster. I will not obey the pasta commandments.
A: You said it, you prove it. Until you meet your burden of proof you must obey the pasta commandments.
If we followed your absurd "whoever talks first" rule then you would say that A is correct.
Complete strawman. First of all, your hypothetical dialog misses on what the comparable claims would be. "There is no evidence" does not mean "the FSM doesn't exist". The claim in that case pertains only to the evidence, which is itself a colloquialism. "There is no evidence" simply means *we* do not have any evidence, to which the burden of proof is satisfied by the inability of anyone in the conversation to provide it.
Second, you're comparing my assertion that election results should be accepted as accurate with the position "a god (FSM) exists". This is wrong because existence is never the default position, meanwhile my position that the results should be accepted is the default position.
The default position is to accept what someone tells you as their understood reality. That means it is only when you have a reason to believe someone is not telling you the truth that you presume otherwise. This is the default position because if it were not, you would be in a position where every single time someone tells you something, even if it's only "my name is..." you would need evidentiary support before accepting any of it. That's absurd.
So when a voting precinct says we have counted the votes and here's the total... That qualifies as a mundane claim which does not require evidentiary support before the rational position of any individual is to accept that as their vote total.
It's the job of governments trying to be a democracy to prove elections happened
If you need proof that the election happened, we can end this conversation right here cause you belong in a nursing home.
What I think you were trying to say that it's the government's job to prove the alleged victor is the actual victor, which is terribly wrong. It's not "the government" making an assertion that Candidate X won the election, that's the mathmatical conclusion of the vote tallies reported by all of the individual precincts. So really your claim is 'it's the job of all the precincts to prove that their vote tallies are what they say they are'. This is reasonable in terms of the system that we have, it is a ridiculous demand from the standpoint of a rational individual weighing whether they should have confidence in the results.
When the left wing candidate wins and you claim we should not accept that result on the basis of fraud, your claim logically necessitates that the left cheated more than the right.
That is correct, but that doesn't mean I have to prove it to say the election is untrustworthy.
If I am presented with a fork in the road and somebody flips a coin, I can say that is an untrustworthy way to determine which path is correct.
You are saying that if it the coin happens to be biased to tails (and that meant left) then it is the mechanism of decision is biased towards the left.
Election cheating is not a coin flip. If there are 5k fraudulent votes, our choices are not (A) it was all democrats, or (B) it was all republicans. Math matters, and we know that neither side has a monopoly on election cheating.
no one should be asked to obey elections where fraud could have changed the outcome
Again, fraud *could* always change the outcome. We don't operate on possibility, we operate on probability/plausibility. You ignore the default position and assert plausibility based on nothing but your own personal distrust of government. You're entitled to that, but don't mistake that for holding a rational position.
