In This, The End of All Things, I Come Out of Lurking

[jonas]

No reason to get so serious. It is merely an idea. And ideas are fluid. I like the idea and find it plausible. But, I am not married to it.

yep, you sound like a prosecutor ;p

[Rasins]

#3.  "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality."  This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world.  For example in a police investigation: 

Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect:  you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm

The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene.  The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not.  The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting.  In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim. 

Cowl is a real character who's identity is hidden. 
Simon is a real character within the stories

Claim: Simon is Cowl, but admits there isn't evidence to prove it.
Poster claim:  Theory is 100% wrong.

Burden is now on poster to prove WHY it is 100% wrong, or admit that they don't have evidence, and simply disagree with claim.  Poster cannot possibly know if Simon is not Cowl without out of book information (Jim saying so), Foreknowledge (a beta reader who knows the identity), or strong in book evidence (which I requested because I want to know what it is).  If Jim didn't say so, if they don't have foreknowledge, and they have no evidence to deny the theory then they have no basis to claim that the belief Simon is Cowl is outrageous, and completely wrong.

I am sorry, but I must disagree with certain parts of this post (specifically, point 3). In the USA, the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor despite the lack of evidence "proving" the innocence of the accused. Unless and until convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal case), a jury must acknowledge the innocence of the defendant. Case in point, the 5th Amendment was explicitly designed to protect the rights of innocents who are accused (which is why you should never ever talk to law enforcement without a lawyer, even as a "witness"- it will be used against you).

In this case, the suspect is still to be regarded as innocent, and your line above: "The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there." is in fact true and correct- the prosecution must still, absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that the suspect did indeed commit the crime, with actual evidence[/i], or else the jury is required to find the suspect to be innocent. NO further effort by the accused is necessary (granted, in the real world, this does not always hold true, but the efforts of the defense are needed because the accused may in fact be guilty (system working as intended), or the suspect needs to prove the prosecution has committed errors either willful, or malignant, or both (flaws in the operations of the system).

Otherwise, all the prosecution would need is to fling accusations, and then sit back and demand "evidence" of innocence.

Granted, there are a lot of problems when actual guilty parties evade justice under this rule of law, but I chalk that up to the problems of human nature- the system was designed in an attempt to hold back the excesses so frequent under, say, the Napoleonic Code.

Point of order ... While yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, claiming something and requiring someone to prove a negative is not possible.  Rather, they are providing evidence of an alternative ...

Now, looking at the bolded "conversation", the burden of proof that it was not them IS on the defendant.  The way they do that is to prove that they were somewhere else.  This is NOT the same thing as proving that they didn't do it.  Rather it's proof that they couldn't have done it, operating under the current laws of physics we currently live under and understand.

[wardenferry419]

yep, you sound like a prosecutor ;p

I can't be a lawyer; I still have a soul. Granted, it is a little soiled and warped.

[jonas]

I can't be a lawyer; I still have a soul. Granted, it is a little soiled and warped.

How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..

[Griffyn612]

Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect:  you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm

The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene.  The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not.  The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting.  In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim. 

You know this is almost entirely wrong, right?  The questions a prosecutor asks do not put the burden on the accused.  If they ask where I was, and I say at home alone, the burden is still on the prosecution to not only prove that I wasn't at home alone, but that I was at the crime scene. I don't have to prove where I was, because I have the presumption of innocence in my favor.

Now, I can provide proof to help my defense.  But if I left it at, "sorry, I was alone", it's not going to get me convicted.  The evidence proving I was there (assuming there was any) would have to do that.  That's the whole point of innocent-until-proven-guilty.

[wardenferry419]

How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..

Because I listen to alot of Motown!

[Rasins]

How do you know you still have a soul? Molly thinks she still does after all..

Yes she does.  Just like Mab.  They both still have souls, but they are tending to be turning more and more on the Dark side.

The Soul doesn't go away, it's just, like, on a spectrum ... dark to light, or good to evil, or demonic to saintly.

As to WF - I'm not so sure ... he may have lost his.  He should check behind the couch, or in the dryer.

[jonas]

Yes she does.  Just like Mab.  They both still have souls, but they are tending to be turning more and more on the Dark side.

The Soul doesn't go away, it's just, like, on a spectrum ... dark to light, or good to evil, or demonic to saintly.

As to WF - I'm not so sure ... he may have lost his.  He should check behind the couch, or in the dryer.

Prove it, soul gaze Mab, Have molly blast a cell phone by accident? Sure it's a spectrum, the same spectrum that still gives it to Reds that, iirc you refuted O.o lol.(after looking through 30+ pages I gave up on finding that convo, insisting Susan was not just 'gone')
Besides, I said A Soul, not soul itself. Fairies have some soul built into their design. But that doesn't make it the Host's pure alloy anymore.

[Rasins]

Prove it, soul gaze Mab, Have molly blast a cell phone by accident? Sure it's a spectrum, the same spectrum that still gives it to Reds that, iirc you refuted O.o lol.(after looking through 30+ pages I gave up on finding that convo, insisting Susan was not just 'gone')
Besides, I said A Soul, not soul itself. Fairies have some soul built into their design. But that doesn't make it the Host's pure alloy anymore.

From Jim himself ... (By the way, I asked this question of him at the signing.)
KC Signing Transcript - Part 1-1

The other question I had is, **unintelligible**…when a human takes on the mantle of a Fae, do they automatically become Fae? Do they lose their soul?

Ok, do they automatically become Fae, do they lose their soul? The answer to that question is “sort of”. Um, it’s automatic, but not necessarily instant. Mab herself was human once, and she eventually became the, uh, the fun-loving Mab that we all know. So, a lot of it has to do with who you are when you go into it, because most of the Fae were human once. A lot were born as half-bloods and decided to become Fae and sort of automatically got their **unintelligible**. But a lot of the other Fae who were there, including the Erl and several others, who were at one point humans….So, a lot of this is going to depend on who they  might end up being, a lot of it depends on who they are going into it and what kind of will they have to maintain who they are. That’s going to be a big deal. I’m really looking forward to writing the next books so I can see what happens with Molly, ‘cause I’m really not sure yet, I have a vague idea of what’s gonna happen, because basically she just got handed the largest, unruliest crowd of little brothers and sisters to deal with ever.

**Audience laughter**

But on the other hand, she’s kinda cool with that. She’s used to that role. So anyway, we’ll have to see what happens to her, but, uh, there’s a lot of choice involved **unintelligible** as far as soul goes. Everybody always talks about souls as if it’s something you can have a receipt for, that if you lose it, then it’s just gone, and I don’t think souls work that way, I think that there’s too much attached to them, I think that there are too many things that consist of what your soul is, so I don’t think this is kinda trying to figure “did you lose your soul?”, because I think you can lose your soul without bothering to stop by any kind of supernatural beings whatsoever. You know, if you watch the news, you’ll see people who do that all the time. But yeah, as far as The Dresden Files goes, as far as eternal damnation, etc., goes, no I don’t think that’s as much an issue for Molly as yet, it could sometime though. Whether Mab has some kind of spark of a soul left or not, that’s one of those questions that would be very difficult to answer, and I’m probably not smart enough to answer it. Probably, when you’ve gone so far down the road, just pure power is madness, it’s hard to hang on to your soul. And it depends on how people who have been handed all this extra stuff deal with it, and what that’s going to do for them in the long run. And it’s one of those long run kind of things, meaning you’re going to be stuck like that for 2,000 years, you don’t really have to go bad tomorrow, you have plenty of time yet to start growing mold on your conscience.

In the 2nd bolded part, Jim clearly is referring to the spectrum of Saved to Damned.  And in the first bolded part he is saying that you never LOSE your soul, like no longer have one.  So that would mean that Mab (who he actually refers to) still has Body, Spirit, AND Soul.

[raidem]

He is using different definitions of soul in that passage.  So, I agree with Raisins.

There is a soul that is eternal I believe, which you never lose.
There is a soul that is about maintaining oneself, one's identity, one's conscience even while wearing a mantle.
There is a soul where doing bad acts causes you to lose it.

Mab ability to maintain her soul "depends on who [she] is going into it and what kind of will [she] has to maintain who [she] is", but her mantle has warped it to such a degree that Jim himself can't really tell if she has a "conscience" left which is I believe the test case if she has lost her soul, her identity separate from the mantle.

[Rasins]

He is using different definitions of soul in that passage.  So, I agree with Raisins.

There is a soul that is eternal I believe, which you never lose.
There is a soul that is about maintaining oneself, one's identity, one's conscience even while wearing a mantle.
There is a soul where doing bad acts causes you to lose it.

Mab ability to maintain her soul "depends on who [she] is going into it and what kind of will [she] has to maintain who [she] is", but her mantle has warped it to such a degree that Jim himself can't really tell if she has a "conscience" left which is I believe the test case if she has lost her soul, her identity separate from the mantle.

That's well put.

[jonas]

That's well put.

So... you now agreeing Susan had soul or are you trying to double standardize a fact into a statistic?

Going back to the well accepted Soul of Human= Freedom of Will, no, Molly doesn't have it anymore, she might think she does, she might continue on and behave in the same way she would have, but she's not going to change in that behavior. Her Humanity has fled her.
*which jives with Woj Lily was simply deluded into thinking she was still human.

[wardenferry419]

Yes she does.  Just like Mab.  They both still have souls, but they are tending to be turning more and more on the Dark side.

The Soul doesn't go away, it's just, like, on a spectrum ... dark to light, or good to evil, or demonic to saintly.

As to WF - I'm not so sure ... he may have lost his.  He should check behind the couch, or in the dryer.

I got soul; I just don't have rhythm.

[jonas]

I got soul; I just don't have rhythm.

Yep, I'm white and nerdy and not an once of rhythm at all... But I can do an occasional melody lol. My wife insists I'm tone def but I've repeatedly proved I'm just tone stupid.

[wardenferry419]

Yep, we are both members of that "Weird Al" club.