Quote from: 556j on August 22, 2012, 01:09:47 PM

When you are asking for loans like pirate was. It is your duty to prove what the funds are being used for. Not the other way around. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The very nature of a (successful) ponzi is that there isn't any evidence, otherwise it would never succeed. When things are so likely to be true, we have to accept them as truths at some point. Gravity for example, prove it, or it's not real. Using your logical that is a sound statement. Give me a fucking break.

I cannot agree more. Some people are just incapable of thinking logically (and no it is not an ad hominem attack) and just cannot grasp the above simple truth.

It is obvious that burden of proof is on suspected ponzi operator once occam's razor sez so. Some people just unable to see the difference between various standard of proofs and who burden of proof is on in various situations.

Treating an obvious ponzi allegation as murder trial with beyond any reasonable doubt proof demanded from potential investors is simply insane (or naive maybe).

However, this is offtopic in this thread probably.

Edit:
google "Ad Ignorantiam", This is a logical fallacy that ponzi operators typically use. They demand their opponents to prove non-existance of a underlying business model.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Quote

... in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

.. and some miracle business model delivering 3000%+ APR.

some simply cannot get it how it is different from "presumption of innocence" concept.