and is no longer eligible to serve on a jury.
That's definitely worth casting a fraudulent ballot.
The REPUBLICAN BLUEPRINT to STEAL the 2024 ELECTION
Posts
Total:
94
-->
@oromagi
2020 election(s), and to a less extent previous ones. Many places, obviously the motivation would be the strongest in swing districts of swing states. The strongest evidence includes whistleblower election workers, dead (or unbelievably old) voters requesting and returning mail in ballots, video and electronic recordings of counting resuming after judges have been removed or dismissed.Stop being so timid. Who? What? When? Where? How? I am assuming that you are afraid to get specific because as soon as you do, I will roll out the fact checks and Secretaries of State PR and court rulings by Trump appointed judges that dismissed your bullshit as incredible more than a year ago.
No I am not being specific because there are too many examples to remember of the top of my head. Just because I can't name concentration camp guards without looking them up doesn't mean there wasn't a holocaust.
On top of that many tweets and videos have been removed by censor, and search engines like google intentionally shunt you away from alternatives or archives making it quite the chore to recover all of what I remember.
For the purposes of demonstrating that you can't "fact check" anything of relevance on demand (which should be obvious) take this testimony Michigan Election Fraud Hearing Testimony, 12/1/20 3 (bitchute.com)
lol, well then they weren't coordinated with all the republicans demanding audits were they...lol, they were the same people, generally speaking. For example, Mark Meadows the very man coordinating all the electoral fraud claims was illegally registered to vote in three states. Trump's very own Chief of Staff was falsely claiming to live in a trailer out in the North Carolina woods. lol. what a pack of crooks.
Hold yourself to the evidentiary standard you demand of others.
The proven fact is that no one assumed the duty of disproving or making impossible plausible theories of fraud,This is easily disproved. If you ever summon to courage to cite an actual official claim of election fraud, I will give you the names of the investigators and officials who disproved that claim. 2020 featured the most thoroughly scrutinized election results in the history of democracy.
I'm not interested the assertions of government officials, I do not trust them and their claim that they have "fact checked" something does not constitute an investigation nor prevention.
A real democracy would have a system which doesn't rely on trust.
and if it's no one's job to do that then there is no such thing as "our democracy".Premise false therefore conclusion fails.
We'll see.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No I am not being specific because there are too many examples to remember of the top of my head.
Nobody asked you off the top of your head but one would think 20 minutes of googling would have given you some examples to argue.
Hitchen's Razor states "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." The burden of proof lies with claimant. If the claimant is unwilling to to submit evidence for our consideration then the burden is not met and I need not argue further.
Just because I can't name concentration camp guards without looking them up doesn't mean there wasn't a holocaust.
Yes but the Judgement of Nuremburg was not decided without first presenting the evidence.
On top of that many tweets and videos have been removed by censor, and search engines like google intentionally shunt you away from alternatives or archives making it quite the chore to recover all of what I remember.
It's not censorship if the government isn't doing it. When media separates truth from fiction that is called journalism. When media excises rubbish that is called editorship. The First Amendment protects you from the government. Twitter and Google don't owe you shit. Twitter and Google researched their opinion and relied on the experts. So far, all you've given us is statements of faith.
For the purposes of demonstrating that you can't "fact check" anything of relevance on demand (which should be obvious) take this testimony Michigan Election Fraud Hearing Testimony, 12/1/20 3 (bitchute.com)
- So this is a GOP poll watcher. Let's recall their behavior at the TCF center was quite unruly. Let's note that this woman is not under oath or in court. This a Republican testifying to other Republicans without cross-examination or any attempt to secure the poll worker's version of the story. Here is the testimony of a Dem poll watcher on the same day, which states that GOP poll watchers arrived with an agenda to disrupte and confuse. https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc
- This is the hearing where Giuliani's main witness famously showed up intoxicated.
- Can we get the name of this witness? Why didn't she report this to law enforcement at the TCF on the day she witnessed it?
- For this witnesses' testimony to be true, multiple counting machines must have failed and multiple team of counters would have all had to decide the same way. Many, many false claims about this particular test center have been factually disproved. I assume this is just another member of Giuliani's team hired to make shit up.
Hold yourself to the evidentiary standard you demand of others.
- OK but now I'm forced to think that you didn't already know this, one the top 3 or 4 news stories last week
- I'm arguing with somebody who doesn't keep up with the news?
I'm not interested the assertions of government officials, I do not trust them and their claim that they have "fact checked" something does not constitute an investigation nor prevention.
- Nevertheless, the government has made an evidence based claim. If you want to disprove it, you must challenge the evidence.
A real democracy would have a system which doesn't rely on trust.
Vote counting at TCF was under pretty strict scrutiny and a lot of bad, disruptive behavior by the GOP was documented there. I see no reason to assume the one piece of evidence you've given is likely to be true. A judge has already ruled that most of the claims of fraud made that day stemmed from ignorance of standard vote counting procedures, I can't tell whether this claim was reviewed by that judge.
-->
@oromagi
No I am not being specific because there are too many examples to remember of the top of my head.Nobody asked you off the top of your head but one would think 20 minutes of googling would have given you some examples to argue.
Well 20 minutes of duck duck going will at least. Before I invest that time though I will have your assurances that you will not move goal posts or gish gallop.
i.e. remember the context of might point, I would be proving that the evidence that could be reasonably expected is present. If you're just going to go "well ok this is probably fraud, and that testimony was never disproved but you can't prove X number of votes for Y candidate were false."
I never said I could, I don't think anyone can because if anyone could that would mean the election was auditable and was audited which is exactly the scenario I am asserting is not the case.
If you want I will make a thread to present that evidence and the theories involved.
Hitchen's Razor states "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." The burden of proof lies with claimant. If the claimant is unwilling to to submit evidence for our consideration then the burden is not met and I need not argue further.
Then recognize what the original [positive] claim was: "A fair and free election occurred in 2020 [and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt]"
It's not censorship if the government isn't doing it.
I reject any definition of censorship which would cause that statement to be true.
When media separates truth from fiction that is called journalism.
lol, well I'll call it "journalism" when I pretend your statements don't exist.
So far, all you've given us is statements of faith.
I shall remember this phrase so I can use it every time you make an assertion or refer to pure assertion.
For the purposes of demonstrating that you can't "fact check" anything of relevance on demand (which should be obvious) take this testimony Michigan Election Fraud Hearing Testimony, 12/1/20 3 (bitchute.com)
- So this is a GOP poll watcher. Let's recall their behavior at the TCF center was quite unruly. Let's note that this woman is not under oath or in court. This a Republican testifying to other Republicans without cross-examination or any attempt to secure the poll worker's version of the story. Here is the testimony of a Dem poll watcher on the same day, which states that GOP poll watchers arrived with an agenda to disrupte and confuse. https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc
This fails to disprove the testimony.
- This is the hearing where Giuliani's main witness famously showed up intoxicated.
I doubt that, and even if it was true it fails to disprove the testimony.
- Can we get the name of this witness? Why didn't she report this to law enforcement at the TCF on the day she witnessed it?
Do you doubt she has a name?
- For this witnesses' testimony to be true, multiple counting machines must have failed and multiple team of counters would have all had to decide the same way.
The fact that you believe that shows you do not know the mechanics involved. I did not know before 2020 either, but I researched because of the controversy and that is when I determined that the elections were trust based and not auditable.
- Many, many false claims about this particular test center have been factually disproved. I assume this is just another member of Giuliani's team hired to make shit up.
You assume do you? "So far, all you've given us is statements of faith."
Hold yourself to the evidentiary standard you demand of others.
- OK but now I'm forced to think that you didn't already know this, one the top 3 or 4 news stories last week
If the pure assertion of organizations that self-identify as "journalists" counts as "evidence" my pool of evidence the 2020 election was rigged just became enormous.
I read this article, but not because it was particularly relevant to my point. There is something relevant though:
Through the Electronic Registration Information Center, a consortium through which states exchange data about voter registration, Whitmire also said officials periodically pull voter lists and remove those who have more recently registered in a new state.
but it apparently didn't stop Meadows did it?
What was my claim? It was: By strategically choosing not to enforce certain election integrity laws an already insecure system became a trust based system and that is unacceptable.
Also it was a related assertion (hearsay if it was court), they posted no hard data. Just like that witness testimony I posted.
I'm not interested the assertions of government officials, I do not trust them and their claim that they have "fact checked" something does not constitute an investigation nor prevention.
- Nevertheless, the government has made an evidence based claim. If you want to disprove it, you must challenge the evidence.
If there was relevant evidence provided I would examine it.
A real democracy would have a system which doesn't rely on trust.Vote counting at TCF was under pretty strict scrutiny and a lot of bad, disruptive behavior by the GOP was documented there. I see no reason to assume the one piece of evidence you've given is likely to be true.
and you trust the scrutinizes, I don't. You should know well that there is more than "one piece of evidence", I posted one only to demonstrate that you could not debunk everything as you implied you could. I will post more in a dedicated thread once I am assured you understand my claims and the burden of proof they incur.
A judge has already ruled that most of the claims of fraud made that day stemmed from ignorance of standard vote counting procedures, I can't tell whether this claim was reviewed by that judge.
Even if that was the case, I don't care. I wouldn't care if the entire supreme court and 100% of the senate said the same thing. A million assertions sum to an assertion.
I am not telling you that you can't believe what you hear for the purposes of day to day life, but debate is when you stop using proxies and start using evidence and logic. A judgement is evidence only of the opinion of the judge, the evidence submitted to the court is the potentially relevant material.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
- Can we get the name of this witness? Why didn't she report this to law enforcement at the TCF on the day she witnessed it?
Do you doubt she has a name?
It's pretty clear you are just trolling and don't sincerely believe that Trump won the 2020 Election.
Here's your last chance to prove otherwise:
-->
@oromagi
I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome.
If you wish to debate this a new thread can be made. Also the intro of your challenge contains the very error in BoP which was my original point in this thread
"verified by the preponderance of official US election observers", rejected on that ground even if there was no voting.
Claim: The official count (popular and collegic) of the 2020 election could not have been incorrect to such a degree that the apparent outcome would have changed due to intentional fraud.
That's the claim of someone who asserts the US is a democracy, if you don't make that claim or don't believe that claim is required you are against democracy. If you do make that claim then you have the BoP for it. That's not BoP to find a group of people who agree with the outcome, that's BoP for the claim itself.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->@oromagiI don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome.
Not a fan of Democracy, got it.
If you wish to debate this a new thread can be made.
You don't need my permission. So far, you've come off as silly hyper-deflecting cynic who can't formulate a cogent refutation. If you think you have a case to make you should make it some time.
PRO TIP: If you are only going to cite the testimony of one witness you should probably learn her name.
Also the intro of your challenge contains the very error in BoP which was my original point in this thread"verified by the preponderance of official US election observers", rejected on that ground even if there was no voting.
FIrst you say "oh I'lll make a claim" but then you don't. When I cite Hitchen's Razor you say then recognize what the original [positive] claim was. I give you the positive claim and you chicken out. That is the claim you must overcome: that voters and election fifty State governments and the Dept of Justice and the majority of Congress and independent international observer all acknowledge that the 2020 Election was free and fair. You say don't accept that judgement but when I ask for reasons you remain decidedly non-specific. I think we've established that you have no sincere problem with the 2020 election.
if you don't make that claim or don't believe that claim is required you are against democracy.
You literally just said "I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome." That is a fair description of democracy. You own words have established that you are against democracy whatever claims you fail to argue.
If you do make that claim then you have the BoP for it.
The overwhelming consensus of many experts and eyewitnesses satisfies most Burdens of Proof including free and fair election. Hell, Pence of Trump/Pence risked his life to certify his own defeat. Now you must explain why you imagine you know so much better than all those tens of thousands of citizens doing their jobs and why you think they are all conspiring to fool you.
-->
@oromagi
I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome.Not a fan of Democracy, got it.if you don't make that claim or don't believe that claim is required you are against democracy.You literally just said "I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome." That is a fair description of democracy. You own words have established that you are against democracy whatever claims you fail to argue.
It's unfortunate that you believe you are qualified to debate. You aren't even aware that ad populum is a fallacy, and an easy one to prove at that.
If you wish to debate this a new thread can be made.You don't need my permission.
But I do need a motivation. It's a lot of work, while perhaps not entirely wasted I would not be able to stay interested if I expected you to dismiss the iceberg because you can only see the tip.
FIrst you say "oh I'lll make a claim" but then you don't.
I did, you complained it wasn't specific enough. Not the same thing as never making it.
When I cite Hitchen's Razor you say then recognize what the original [positive] claim was. I give you the positive claim and you chicken out.
The positive claim you made does not interface with my original point. The USSR could produce a list of officials who signed off on Stalin's election as well.
That is the claim you must overcome: that voters and election fifty State governments and the Dept of Justice and the majority of Congress and independent international observer all acknowledge that the 2020 Election was free and fair.
You stretch credulity on many of those claims, but I will not delve into it because it does not matter how many people believe X. Humans are fallible, sometimes more so in groups than alone.
If you do make that claim then you have the BoP for it.The overwhelming consensus of many experts and eyewitnesses satisfies most Burdens of Proof including free and fair election.
"experts" I dismiss as I dismiss all appeals to authority. Experts should provide good arguments if they are experts. If they can't or won't provide good arguments they aren't really experts. If you (or anyone else) agree with the expert but can't understand their arguments and use them, you shouldn't get into a debate about the subject expecting to rely on those arguments or the authority of the expert who formulated them.
Eye witnesses testimony is a form of evidence, but only the assertions of witnessed events. If a man sees the sun eclipsed that may be entirely true, but that doesn't mean his explanation that it is Fenrir eating the sun must be accepted.
The shocking conclusion I came to during the months of attempted audits was that your assumption about a great mass of eye witnesses is far from reliable. In the Georgia video for instance the so called fact checkers made a grand deal about how the bins were stored under the table in full view of everyone, conveniently remaining silent on the fact that an enormous number of ballots were added without election judges, and moreover those judges were just sitting in a corner of a room where they could not possibly have witnessed anything suspicious in the first place.
A conspiracy of 2-3 in the counting facility and 5-20 overall could produce a delta of thousands of fraudulent ballots. That is certainly not an intrinsic risk of paper ballots in the information age, the simplest explanation is that this vulnerability was intentionally made.
Hell, Pence of Trump/Pence risked his life to certify his own defeat. Now you must explain why you imagine you know so much better than all those tens of thousands of citizens doing their jobs and why you think they are all conspiring to fool you.
I think I know so much better than tens of thousands of people on a great number of issues. In general I am curious as to why they are wrong, but I do not need to find an answer. Why did millions of people convince themselves that the sun would not rise unless they cut someone's heart out? An irrational conclusion can have many causes, one does not need to know them all to know it is false.
In this case it's tens of thousands who disagree and tens of thousands who agree, I am certainly not alone in this though I remind you that logic does not care either way.
I can illustrate your misrepresentation using Pence of Trump/Pence. Pence choose to count the submission of electors signed by governers because he believed that was what the founders intended the vice president to do. He never said it was because he thought there was no chance the election was decided by fraud. In a similar vein I believe that the majority of judges and law enforcement choose to excuse themselves as quickly as possible from the question because they were afraid of what it would mean if they found in favor of fraud or even entertained the idea. As we can see with the kangaroo courts of DC and the Jan 6 committee being charged with sedition was a realistic fear.
If I have to explain why I "imagine" I know better than Pence, why don't you have to explain why you "imagine" you know better than Trump of Trump/Pence?
Did it even occur to you that the non-existent assertions of Pence were no more valuable than the very documented assertions of Trump?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's unfortunate that you believe you are qualified to debate.
I've never made such a claim. I have frequently claimed the opposite on this site.
You aren't even aware that ad populum is a fallacy, and an easy one to prove at that.
Dismissing democracy as a logical fallacy. eeek.
But I do need a motivation.
Not my job.
It's a lot of work, while perhaps not entirely wasted I would not be able to stay interested if I expected you to dismiss the iceberg because you can only see the tip.
You claim your government is illegal but you have trouble staying interested? No wonder you don't read the news. Anyway, that debate is waiting for you:
I did, you complained it wasn't specific enough. Not the same thing as never making it.
You still haven't.
The positive claim you made does not interface with my original point. The USSR could produce a list of officials who signed off on Stalin's election as well.
If the overwhelming majority of People's deputies claimed that Stalin lost while only a handful of Stalin's cronies cried victory, I would call that excellent evidence that Stalin probably lost the election.
That is the claim you must overcome: that voters and election fifty State governments and the Dept of Justice and the majority of Congress and independent international observer all acknowledge that the 2020 Election was free and fair.Humans are fallible, sometimes more so in groups than alone.
platitude, not argument
"experts" I dismiss as I dismiss all appeals to authority
A good way to foster ignorance.
Eye witnesses testimony is a form of evidence, but only the assertions of witnessed events.
that's what eyewitness means.
an enormous number of ballots were added without election judges,
bullshit. It is true that one State election monitor went home for an hour but he was not required to be there by law. An investigator from the Republican Secretary of State's Office and an independent observer were present as well as the Elections Board supervisor. If any absentee ballots had been added then that number would not have matched the receipt numbers. On November 3rd, Fulton County acknowledged receipt of 145000 absentee ballots on Nov 3rd but didn't finish counting those ballots until Nov 5th. If "enormous numbers" of ballots had been added, that would have been caught on tape and changed the receipt numbers claimed on Nov 3rd.
A conspiracy of 2-3 in the counting facility and 5-20 overall could produce a delta of thousands of fraudulent ballots. That is certainly not an intrinsic risk of paper ballots in the information age, the simplest explanation is that this vulnerability was intentionally made.
The simplest explanation is that nothing unusual took place.
Let's recall there have been three audits of these ballots since- 2 hand recounts and on machine recount. All 3 audits confirmed the original count. Counters and supervisors and observers from all 3 audits would have to be in on the conspiracy. Furthermore, the mostly Republican County Election Board and mostly Republican County Commissioners would have to be in on your conspiracy. Also the Republican Secretary of State, Republican Attorney General and Republican Governor all looked into your claim and called it bullshit so they would have to be in on the conspiracy too. Last summer, Georgia Bureau of Investigation detectives were allowed to unseal the ballots for a fourth audit, so add the GBI to your conspiracy. The Chief Judge from a different county, Brian Amero (also a Republican) would have to be in on it too since he ruled last October that the plaintiff had failed to credibly demonstrate any harm or wrongdoing.
It is worth noting that plaintiff in this case is a well-known QAnon conspiracy theorist, having given public lectures on JFK assassination theories, Clinton murder theories, and 9/11 inside job theories for decades. Let's agree that just because the plaintiff has always been a disordered kook doesn't necessarily mean he continues to be a disordered kook, even if distorting the truth is how he makes his living.
Let's recall that the Fulton County officials made national news begging Trump to stop encouraging death threats against their Republican county officials. Let's also note that these Republicans convened a Grand Jury just this week to review felony obstruction of justice charges against Trump.
I think I know so much better than tens of thousands of people on a great number of issues.
ick.
In this case it's tens of thousands who disagree and tens of thousands who agree,
Nope, its more like Fulton County, State of Georgia, Congress, the Trump Administration, the Dept of Justice, the US Judicial system, international observers, and the mainstream media vs. Trump and QAnon.
I can illustrate your misrepresentation using Pence of Trump/Pence.
I said "Pence of Trump/Pence risked his life to certify his own defeat. " That is a fact you can't deny or call misrepresentation.
Pence works like you and that handful of other people who don't want to alienate the conspiracy nuts but don't want to be caught flat out lying either- you keep the details ultra-vague and pray that nobody ever calls on you to present your case.
-->
@oromagi
[oromagi:] You literally just said "I don't participate in debates where there is some kind of implication that popular support decides the outcome." That is a fair description of democracy. You own words have established that you are against democracy whatever claims you fail to argue.[ADOL:] You aren't even aware that ad populum is a fallacy, and an easy one to prove at that.[oromagi:] Dismissing democracy as a logical fallacy. eeek.
Democracy is a form of government. Ad populum is a fallacious argument. If a democracy claimed to be determining infallible truth with its votes it would be committing a fallacy. If it only claims to be choosing its laws and leaders by a vote there is no fallacy.
This is beyond obvious, so obvious that I have just concluded you are not engaging honestly.
The positive claim you made does not interface with my original point. The USSR could produce a list of officials who signed off on Stalin's election as well.If the overwhelming majority of People's deputies claimed that Stalin lost while only a handful of Stalin's cronies cried victory, I would call that excellent evidence that Stalin probably lost the election.
Which means the other guy probably won, but the other guy was in fact Stalin... which implies you think Stalin actually won... which makes my point perfectly.
an enormous number of ballots were added without election judges,bullshit. It is tr....
Since I have determined you are not engaging honestly I'll need someone to second your objections before investing time in a response.
-->
@Greyparrot
The crazy thing is, you actually believe this is the equivalent of what democrats have done.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't know why you are covering for a woman calling a legally elected president "illegitimate". That is incredibly damaging to the democracy you purportedly love so much. I don't see how free speech is even in question. Yes, what she said is free speech. It is also the free speech of any Republican who says that Democrats removed votes and replaced them with fake votes.
Do you... seriously... not know the difference between:
"candidate X shouldn't have won the election"
vs.
"candidate X didn't win the election"?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"experts" I dismiss as I dismiss all appeals to authority.
I mean no offense by saying this, but this is why Trump supporters are widely considered to be idiots.
If you need an attorney, you hire someone who passed the bar exam. If you need surgery, you go to someone with a doctorate. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you either cherry pick or appeal to someone who is not an authority, as in someone who does not have expertise.
All of this is common sense. It'll never cease to amaze me how people are willing to abandon that in order to hold onto their own political ideology.
-->
@Double_R
this is the equivalent of what democrats have done.
It is. Both parties don't care about you. They care about power.
-->
@Double_R
I mean no offense by saying this, but this is why Trump supporters are widely considered to be idiots.
Thanks for the demonization. Wonder what famous Authoritarian did that in history for the sake of power?
Deplorables can't just be ignored unless you want a civil war for the sake of intellectual boredom.
If you need an attorney, you hire someone who passed the bar exam.
Lol! You are the kind of person who would pick a court appointed attorney on credentials alone over one with no credentials and a perfect court record. There are many who live in a dream world of their own mental superiority.
All of this is common sense.
To people in an echo chamber, it is.
-->
@Greyparrot
It is. Both parties don't care about you. They care about power.
What they care about is irrelevant. What matters is what they do. And what democrats have actually done is not remotely similar to your delusions of GOP control.
Thanks for the demonization.
You can take it as demonization or recognize the absurdity of the position. Not surprising you chose the former.
Lol! You are the kind of person who would pick a court appointed attorney on credentials alone over one with no credentials and a perfect court record. There are many who live in a dream world of their own mental superiority.
The usual unserious and frankly stupid response I've come to expect...
All of this is common sense.To people in an echo chamber, it is
Right. The idea that we are better off turning to people who know what they're doing than trusting or own tuitions is your idea of an echo chamber.
It's sad that there are really people out there like this. No wonder America elected a man who thought it would be a good idea to nuke a hurricane as president.
-->
@Double_R
What they care about is irrelevant.
Really? So you don't think the Democrat party cares about helping people over their mad lust for power anymore?
The idea that we are better off turning to people who know what they're doing than trusting or own tuitions is your idea of an echo chamber.
No, it's the ideas of lazy individuals who support authoritarianism over individual responsibility.
81 million votes for the most credentialed president in all American history...
Biden is a walking meme about what happens when we trust authority and credentials.
-->
@Double_R
"experts" I dismiss as I dismiss all appeals to authority.I mean no offense by saying this, but this is why Trump supporters are widely considered to be idiots.
Regardless of offense: anyone who permanently surrenders the responsibility of discerning truth to others is worse than an idiot. Idiots are often confident in their own foolishness, which makes them wrong but not always easy to manipulate.
The problem with "experts", much like religions, is there is so many (if you define them as people who will tell you what to think with confidence); and if you won't think for yourself you can't differentiate between them. If you can differentiate between them it is only to the degree that you have invested the time to gain some expertise of your own.
If you have already dismissed yourself as incapable of evaluating arguments then it is the greatest temptation to simply choose experts based on whether their message is emotionally pleasant to accept.
For those reasons, and because of the almost instantaneously collapse to rejecting unwanted "experts" appeals to authority have no place in debate.
Observe:
Trump is an expert on election fraud claims, the end.
Trust the experts Double_R.
If you need an attorney, you hire someone who passed the bar exam.
You don't have much choice. You also need a priest if you want to get forgiven.... according to priests.
If you need surgery, you go to someone with a doctorate.
You go to someone who has studied a lot and practiced a lot. A doctorate is only a hopeful proxy for that.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you either cherry pick or appeal to someone who is not an authority, as in someone who does not have expertise.
I know that is the standard claim in debate handbooks, but it's a provable error; the only way to prove expertise is to provide sound/strong argumentation thus even in the best case an appeal to authority is a pointless layer of indirection.
If you do not immediately see this explain the means to differentiate between an appeal to people and appeal to authority.
All of this is common sense. It'll never cease to amaze me how people are willing to abandon that in order to hold onto their own political ideology.
It indicative of a narrow field of vision. A man can only have the luxury of trusting in common sense, the wisdom of crowds and the "experts" of crowds when he considers only his own time and community.
If he searches for philosophy that functions just as well in the shadow of an Aztec pyramid he must do better than referring to others. He must look at the propositions themselves and draw inferences using logic not trust.
-->
@Greyparrot
What they care about is irrelevant.Really? So you don't think the Democrat party cares about helping people over their mad lust for power anymore?
What they care about is irrelevant.
Pretty sure I just finished explaining this.
The idea that we are better off turning to people who know what they're doing than trusting or own tuitions is your idea of an echo chamber.No, it's the ideas of lazy individuals who support authoritarianism over individual responsibility.
I'm pretty sure the last time you had a toothache you went to the dentist. Arguing that it's somehow a bad thing to take the position that those who know what they're doing should be listened to would be incredibly stupid if you actually believed it, the problem is that you don't. You know full well that this is the only reasonable way to approach the world and it's why human civilization has thrived. It's only when it comes to politics that you suddenly think differently.
But we're the ones suffering from TDS.
And BTW, Google authoritarianism. Learn what it actually means, then take note of how one of the last two presidents meets all of those check boxes perfectly. Also take note of how it's not the president you complain about as you complain about it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
anyone who permanently surrenders the responsibility of discerning truth to others is worse than an idiot. Idiots are often confident in their own foolishness, which makes them wrong but not always easy to manipulate.The problem with "experts", much like religions, is there is so many (if you define them as people who will tell you what to think with confidence); and if you won't think for yourself you can't differentiate between them.
Trusting experts is not the disregard of reason and logic, it is the result of using it. There is a reason human civilization has thrived. There is a reason we put a man on the moon and satellites in space. No one person figured out everything needed to accomplish this. We did it because we understand that the world is an extemely complicated place, and those who have focused their lives in particular feilds of expertise are by far the best voices to discern what is real from what is fiction. This is basic common sense.
The irony here is that you think you are somehow different - like you're thinking for yourself while the rest of us mindless bots just follow others. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of information you consider knowledge you, just like the rest of us, learned from someone else. How do you know George Washington was a real person? Were you there? No, you were told he was. How do you know Antarctica exists? Have you ever been there? No, you were told it exists, and shown images you were told was Antarctica.
The only difference between us is in who we decide to trust with the information we consider to be factual and more importantly, how we go about determining who to trust. That's where the "I don't trust experts" idea goes off the rails. There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but that is something entirely different.
If you do not immediately see this explain the means to differentiate between an appeal to people and appeal to authority.
I don't know what "appeal to people means". There are appeals to authority, and then there is the appeal to authority fallacy, which I already explained is when you appeal to someone who is not an authority. The difference between these two is the process by which we tell who is an authority.
The first is about credentials, including experience and proven results. If someone has a track record of accomplishing the desired result, they are likely to continue getting said results. That's basic inference.
The second is about access. If I go to a doctor and he tells me my blood pressure levels are not safe, they're probably not safe. I trust him as the authority in this situation because he's the only doctor I have access to in that moment so I am reasonable to take his conclusion as accurate. But if I go to 10 doctors and 9 of them tell me my blood pressure is high while 1 says it’s low, to assume it’s low I’m ignoring the bulk of experts in favor of the assessment I want to hear. That’s not rational.
And yes, there will always be some doctor or some scientist out there who will tell you what you want to hear, that’s why we look to the bulk of expertise in order to determine what the authority is there. To do otherwise is claim humanity itself is not only incapable of understanding a particular field, but also that we are not smart enough to know we don’t understand it. That takes quite an argument to justify.
-->
@Double_R
And BTW, Google authoritarianism. Learn what it actually means, then take note of how one of the last two presidents...
Let me stop you right there. Every president is an Authority.
81 million people voted for the current walking meme solely on the basis that he was a "trusted authority" with credentials.
-->
@Greyparrot
Google authoritarianism.
-->
@Double_R
Google authoritarianism.
I did, Every president is an Authority who restricts freedom. Name me one president who has not and I will show you a president that did literally nothing in office.
81 million people voted for the current walking meme solely on the basis that he was a "trusted authority" with credentials.
Is anybody on this website the least bit surprised that Greyparrot can't tell the difference between Democracy and Authoritarianism? What a well broken slave.
81 million people voted for the current walking meme solely on the basis that he was a "trusted authority" with credentials.
I find it absolutely weird there are no references at all to Trump on the Wiki page for Authoritarians
Elon Musk is a powerful man indeed.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Anyone who permanently surrenders the responsibility of discerning truth to others is worse than an idiot. Idiots are often confident in their own foolishness, which makes them wrong but not always easy to manipulate.
Correct. At least an idiot can be like a broken clock that is correct a few times a day as opposed to a Democrat who regularly votes for "credentialed" people 100% of the time.
-->
@Greyparrot
Google authoritarianism.I did
Then learn how to read. No former president in recent memory compares to the last one. He’s in a league of his own.
And BTW I’ll take the current president’s memes over the last one any day. At least the current one doesn’t think clean coal when they take it out and scrub it with a brush.
-->
@Double_R
No former president in recent memory compares to the last one.
You are right, FDR for example was far more aggressive in exercising his democratically bestowed authority. In fact, no president is like any other.
Even Mr. 81 million votes meme cant compare to any other president.
He’s in a league of his own.
Maybe you should edit the wiki page on Authoritarians to include Trump's name since you seem to be the only one with this idea. Just hope Elon Musk doesn't censor you.
And BTW I’ll take the current president’s memes over the last one any day.
Lol Mean Tweeting or Meme Fleecing.... must be fun to live in the bubble.