Total posts: 4,833
Secretly recorded footage of this meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1e_C5Szfss
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The comment I made was about how when the left attacks the right, almost always those attacks are against things Trump has done and said himself
Like when Trump said puerto ricans were garbage... oh wait...
The example you gave isn't even about that, it was of Biden attacking Trump's supporters which has even less to do with political substance than the silly cultural war issues.
Like abortion. Trump said he would veto a ban, yet for some reason the entire DNC thought that was the winning issue.
It's almost like they tried to cram an issue they thought they could win on down the throats of the public regardless of what the candidates were saying or doing.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Responding to a general assesment with an anecdote is not a fact check
POTUS, right before the election, calling the entire opposing base garbage...
an "anecdote"
Well with your definition of "anecdote" I may now understand why you said the election integrity thread was full of them.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
When the left was on the attack, they would attack the candidate himselflolLet me guess, next time you brag about how often you own me in debate this will be one of the examples you think of... amiright?
A simple fact check is a bit short to be called a debate.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Easy to create one, almost impossible to convince nearly the entire population of one of the main parties to switch to a new party. That is what is required for the new party to have a chance.
Winner takes all.
Created:
The dawn of the kingdom of the libertarians
(planet of the apes style lettering)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
When the left was on the attack, they would attack the candidate himself
Created:
I suggest google's old motto.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
People create their own prosperity when they're allowed to. There are only two root policies that would help the economy:
1.) Reduce the amount of government theft
2.) Reduce the red tape, or at least make it transparent. Quickly understood, quickly appealed, quickly resolved. i.e. deregulation
Trump has huge power to do (2) and very little for (1).
The two main mechanisms for theft are:
1.) inflation, caused by the fed, and primarily government bonds issued to pay for government budge.
2.) taxes
Only congress can spend less money or reduce taxes
Tariffs will reduce the trade deficit which will allow us to hold on and perhaps rebuild US manufacturing. This is a long term benefit but the only reason it was ever cheaper to ship things from China was because of the economic depression of the aforementioned mass theft and red tape.
The migration is a similar issue, they're here because USD mean a hell of a lot in their home countries; it's just the best job they can hope for. If the deep state wasn't propping up the US dollar to manage the ever increasing trade deficit that wouldn't be so pronounced.
Deporting people and tariffs are bandaid solutions, treating the symptoms and not the root cause, but as I said Trump can only treat one half of the root cause.
In case I'm not being clear, a truly free market country doesn't need tariffs because they would make all the products they can internally and only trade for things that genuinely can't be easily produced at home.... like say rare earths or oil (for some countries).
For the USA there is very little foreign resources we actually need. If we would just drill we would have our own oil. If we would just mine we would have our own rare earths.
The only thing we should be importing from China (in a rational economy) would be silk, tea, and fine Chinese crafts. You know like it used to be before the insanity of fiat currency.
Created:
Posted in:
I am pointing out that in order to rationally justify your skepticism regarding the election results on the basis of fraud, you have to make a plausible case that the fraud could have overturned the results.
Yes, and since results are the positive assertion; a plausible case consists of pointing out there is no possible argument concluding the results are accurate beyond a reasonable doubt.
You say there is a flying spaghetti monster 47 light-years away that emits no radiation and has no effect on our system.
I say there is no way you could possibly support that assertion.
You say "you haven't disproved the monster yet, the default is that the monster exists"
So just as a thought experiment, let's say the election was decided by exactly 10k votes and let's also say that there were exactly 10k plus 1 fraudulent ballots cast. What are the chances that fraud changed the result?Answer: Statistical impossibility. For that to occur literally every single one of the 10k plus fraudulent ballots needed to be for the same side while 0 fraudulent ballots were cast for the opposite. Given that we know fraud is committed on both sides, that mathematically raises the threshold on how many fraudulent ballots it would take to swing the results, which in turn puts that much more emphasis on the need not only to prove a high rate of fraud, but a disproportionate beneficiary of that fraud. That's what it would take mathematically therefore that point cannot be discarded while claiming to be rational.
You multiply an unknown by an unknown and you get more unknown.
I'd love to confirm the statistics that prove the election is trustworthy but those statistics do not exist BECAUSE THE FUCKING ELECTIONS AREN'T AUDITABLE!
Note that for future attempts to restore democracy: a mechanism which could give us an rock solid upper limit for the number of fraudulent ballots would also be able to catch them before they are added to the pile. In other words get it right the first time.
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. Yes, that is a tautology; but I don't need to prove that the coin is biased because any answer the coin gives is decoupled from the correct decision which is found by consulting a map (legitimate voters in a real election).
If the right fork leads to our destination and the left does not, the biased coin can still give "the right answer"; but it is still an unreliable decider.
So no you don't get to pretend it doesn't matter who's doing the cheating and provide no basis for why you claim one side is notably worse than the other.
Yes I do, see above, no one should be asked to obey elections where fraud could have changed the outcome and the hypothetical knowledge of the fraud distribution doesn't change that. If you have the fraudulent ballots and you know the distribution of the markings then you have everything you need to cure the election and after your corrections the fraud (which you eliminated) has zero chance of changing the outcome (from the correct outcome).
Which is to say you ran around in a circle and said "If elections were trustworthy then you couldn't call them untrustworthy". Thanks.
Back in the real world we don't know how many ballots are fraudulent and we sure as hell don't know what the fraudulent ballots are marked for. All we have are scant statistics that tell us it's probably democrats cheating so they probably marked the ballots for democrats; but if the evidence indicated republicans were cheating (more) that would still be an untrustworthy election and we would still need to secure the vote before calling ourselves a democracy.
If that is your default position you owe me money, the contract I claim you signed says so. <- remember this, it's the thought experiment you couldn't handle last time.I destroyed that point, but clearly you couldn't handle it. Don't remember what thread it was, pull it up and I'll gladly show you.
This thread post #44 (the start).
If somebody claimed I owed them money and obedience because they landed on the moon, it sure as hell is their job to prove they landed on the moon (in a world where landing on the moon is somehow relevant to that).Basic epistemological error.The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.
Common misconception. Burden of proof is always on the positive claim. The claim that something exists or that a relationship between two things exists.
Observe, by simply negating the assertion and shifting the order you can turn the initial claim of existence into an appeal to ignorance:
a.1: There is a flying spaghetti monster, obey the pasta commandments.
b: You said it, you prove it. I will not obey the pasta commandments until you do.
a.2: The existence of the flying spaghetti monster is by default true, you prove it's not real.
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. Under the correct rules of logic (A) is identical to (a.2) and is false in either case because both assumed positive existence carries no burden of proof while skepticism did.
An election is something with a definition. Those who claim one happened are claiming the positive existence. I can't claim that I ran a national election in my bedroom and then it's YOUR job to prove I didn't. The skeptical position, the negative position, the default position is that no (real) election occurred.
It's the job of governments trying to be a democracy to prove elections happened just like it's the job of banks to prove they invested your money and didn't pocket it and scientists to publish their data and experimental procedure.
You don't prove it, then you're not a democracy. You can't find my money, then you're a fraudulent bank. You don't publish your results and experimental procedure, then you're not engaged in science.
And given the number of safeguards in place and lack of any historical precedent for the kind of thing you're talking about, it's more than sufficient.
If you think the safeguards are sufficient you're contending that the so called elections are accurate. Which is again another tautology. "If we assume it's accurate then don't have to worry about fraud", genius.
As for precedent, read some history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election
Again, a group that allegedly provided services to the Harris campaign was caught trying to cheat. So what does this prove?
That groups that claimed to provide services to the Harris campaign try to cheat.
And do we even know that it was the organization, or just someone working within it? Those are two different things.
Ah yes, the lone gunman. Would you like me to go find all the times you claimed that the conspiracy size required would be enormous and thus stand no chance of remaining undetected?
Yea, it was ME who correctly pointed out that much of the required fraudulent activity did not require large conspiracies.
You can have your cake, but if you eat it you won't have it anymore Double_R. You pick:
Either the whole organization was a fraud machine because that is the only thing that has a chance OR it was 1-3 people within that organization and that the Harris campaign had no direct knowledge.
I find the latter to be more plausible, as I have said. I also think the fact that the Harris campaign had no direct knowledge and gave no direct orders is a feature not a bug. Plausible deniability. It'll keep the individual out of prison but on the grand scale they know their people cheat because they are the ones who resist all election security policies and go so far as to violate election laws made to ensure integrity.
Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization?If they weren't then there is only one possibility: The field and media corps claiming that they were clients was an overt lie.No, it isn't. It means people got things wrong.
Whoopsie, I just mistaken pasted a presidential campaign into our portfolio. A misclick, a typo, happens all the time. Pfft (and that's all you'll get from me on that one).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If it was to prevent people from being infected or reduce the death count of a pandemic with effective measures it looks like absolute failure.If you're talking about COVID, the reason we were an absolute failure is because we as a country followed the lead of the moron in the oval office and did not take COVID seriously, which is exactly what happens when you politicize a pandemic.
So congratulations to those countries not run by "morons" who successfully kept COVID-19 out of their populations. Would they now come forward to receive our applause:
*crickets*
So when Fauci was actually head of the response under Trump, what we he have done differently had Trump not stopped him?
It doesn't matter what you do to educate people who aren't interested in being educated because they've become convinced that the educators themselves are really just nefarious conspirators hell bent on manipulating the public for some undetermined reason.
There was plenty of institutional authority at the start. The public decided it wasn't warranted because the orders were clearly ineffective, hypocritical, ridiculous, and onerous.
but play ignorant with "undetermined reason".
It's not up to Anthony Fauci to stop everyone from getting infected
So arguments don't establish expertise and in practice neither do results since you just dismiss the facts if the "expert" failed to deliver results.
it's up to people to protect themselves.
They might have if a real expert had given them effective advise.
Advise like: full quarantine you idiots you can't contain a highly infectious virus with a fucking curfew while simultaneously you congregate in bars and grocery stores.
The orders and "advise" given appears to be calibrated to create a slow motion infection of everyone at the greatest psychological and economic damage possible.
Either ignoring the virus entirely and taking our losses or a four week full quarantine would have been preferable. Neither of those circumstances would have drawn out the crises long enough to steal an election or make big pharma untold billions.
But many people are not effective communicators, that has little bearing on whether they know what they are doing.
It has a major impact on whether other people know that they know what they're doing.
So then when the knowledge is not shared, it is not repeatable by others. So an "expert" who won't share is indistinguishable from a non-expert.According to that logic a world class chef who doesn't share his recipes is indistinguishable from you or I.
It was your logic.
I would say there are other definitions of "expert" that you are trying to conflate.
"Trust the experts" refers to the claim that somebody knows a truth that you don't know and can't know because you're too stupid or uneducated. They supposedly have the best argument but it's not your role as a plebeian to understand it.
An "expert chef" is someone who has accumulated useful algorithms and known experimental outcomes (recipes). Keeping those experiments a secret precludes it from being scientific or democratic.
One chef might be following an ancient recipe that just tastes good (like hippocrates)
Another might be more aware of the chemistry and capable of making actual predictions before trying something (as modern medical researchers compared to hippocrates).
Perhaps this conflation between the best argument and a track record of results is part of the fallacy of "trust the experts".
In case I haven't already asked this directly of you: Was hippocrates an expert?
He got results, that's for sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Burden of proof error.My conclusion is: We don't know who the winner was/is.That's a negative.You claimed that Trump won because the right overcame the fraud, that's not a negative and it logically necessitates that the fraud worked against them, meaning it was mostly done by the left.
You are ignoring context.
The context was your statement "So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating."
You don't need to know the direction of the error to know error is plausible.
And again, it's not a burden of proof error. You're the one claiming our elections are untrustworthy while ignoring the hurdles your claim has to overcome.
See there it is again. "untrustworthy"
It's untrustworthy when you can't trust the result is accurate no matter which way the bias is.
I do think and did claim that the left-tribers are cheating more and that true democracy would favor the right, but I do not need to prove that to prove untrustworthiness.
The mere fact that an operation requiring high public trust is conducted in an insecure or unauditable way proves untrustworthiness.
Proving the levels of fraud being committed are plausibly sufficient to change the outcome is just one of them. Proving that the fraud skews in either direction is another hurdle, says math.
Math says nothing of the sort.
The checks and balances in place to ensure election integrity are more than sufficient.
See this thread.
The burden of proof is not on the person who takes the position no (as in insufficient) fraud, that's the default position.
If that is your default position you owe me money, the contract I claim you signed says so. <- remember this, it's the thought experiment you couldn't handle last time. You might want to just go back to the start of the thread and review what happened. Reruns are boring.
You're simply doing what every conspiracy theorist does, accusing others of fraud/cover up and pretending it's everyone else's job to refute your baseless allegations. It isn't.
If somebody claimed I owed them money and obedience because they landed on the moon, it sure as hell is their job to prove they landed on the moon (in a world where landing on the moon is somehow relevant to that).
So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraudOf course it is.Math says otherwise.Post the math.-5000 + 5000 = 0
How did you determine the number of fraudulent ballots was exactly 10,000?
Yes it's a silly question but then you posted a silly thing. I'm making a claim about uncertainty and then you post math without error bars.
The only other possibility is a false flag. Is that what you are claiming is more probable?What I'm saying is that your "evidence" is terribly underwhelming.
That's not one of the options. It's either:
1.) People paid by the Harris campaign cheated
2.) It's a false flag by people trying to spread distrust in the election
3.) Lancaster county election officials were lying about fraudulent registrations and who did them
"your evidence doesn't matter" = (3).
In which case: Now whose accusing others of fraud/cover up?
Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization?
If they weren't then there is only one possibility: The field and media corps claiming that they were clients was an overt lie.
What could possibly motivate such a lie when many companies have been sued into oblivion for less?
It would only make sense if it was a false flag. If they were pro-harris cheaters who thought they would get caught, they wouldn't want to implicate the Harris campaign. If they were padding their portfolio with fraud (which would be hilarious) to attract clients then they were taking a big risk which is compounded by the fact that they were cheating so any attention from investigators or media would be a threat.
In other words when the mafia sets up a money laundering operation, they don't cheat the customers; that would just attract attention.
Hence your options are (again): false flag or Harris funded
This is what's necessary to make an entry level case.
Meeting your double standards is not the goalpost in this thread Double_R. This particular example far exceeds what would be required to sow reasonable doubt in an unbiased person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Gender theory has coerced some experts to compromise their reputations. It is as sad as it is dangerous.
It is sad, but also useful.
It's good to know who will compromise their reputation by speaking as an authority on non-sense.
These people can destroy trust that took a century to build in a few years if they are not disowned and expelled from academia. We're probably already too far along, we'll need to start over.
Created:
Posted in:
Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an expert?
Here is the important question: Would your algorithm for identifying an expert failed before this gender nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yea Tim Pool went through them, they predicted Trump victory bigly.The funniest thing about that guy is I’m pretty sure the 13 keys model would’ve actually held up if he had applied them honestly.
The poor man was simply in a propaganda bubble.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How is McConnel still in power.
I would secure primaries in his district before any of the swing states. I have yet to meet a single person who respects the guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What if you don't pay them?Your example did not prove that. You may not care about the explanation if the car isn't fixed, but that does not mean the explanation doesn't prove expertise.The entire point and purpose of expertise is accomplish a particular goal. If you cannot accomplish that goal then you are not an expert.
Are all mechanics you refuse to pay no longer experts?
What goal did Anthony Fauci accomplish?
If it was to prevent people from being infected or reduce the death count of a pandemic with effective measures it looks like absolute failure.
The convincing argument is demonstration.No, it's not. It's a demonstration of the fact that you are an effective communicator.
I shouldn't be surprised that you don't really believe in rational epistemology, you've lost many debates to me. It is easily explained if you think logic can be brushed off as "effective communication".
Expertise, by definition, requires that one's ability to achieve results is based on knowledge and is repeatable by others.
So then when the knowledge is not shared, it is not repeatable by others. So an "expert" who won't share is indistinguishable from a non-expert.
QED
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
For example, let’s say I see a news article making by a claim and backing it up with testimony from a supposed expert. To verify that, I look at the original study done by this person, because news sources usually leave out some of the important stuff.
and you can understand this study? Then you have some expertise.
I also google around their name, and see if any other people in the field have contradictory opinions to them.
"other people in the field" how do you identify them?
Suppose a paper pushing poser claim to be an expert despite not understanding the subject and just collecting checks through tenure or absurd government granting schemes. Do you just assume anyone associated with a university is "in the field", an "expert"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Burden of proof error.I pointed out the fact that proving that there is cheating doesn't prove the results were skewed by it in any particular direction.
My conclusion is: We don't know who the winner was/is.
That's a negative.
Correct translation: Those who claim a democratic election took place have no evidenceTranslation; "I have no evidence"
See above.
So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraudOf course it is.Math says otherwise.
Post the math.
Wow, an organization that was caught in a fraudulent scheme were paid by a presidential campaign. And we know this because the fraudsters told us so.Amazing how your impossibly high standards of critical thinking plummet as soon as the narrative becomes convenient for you.
The only other possibility is a false flag. Is that what you are claiming is more probable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I've said it before and I'll say it againA. She published her evidence and the numbers match up with what she is saying
If you can verify her logic (including math) that makes you something of an expert.
We're evaluating your claim that you don't need to have expertise to identify an expert.
B. A majority of other researchers in her field agree with her and say she is qualified to speak on that topic
So you can't tell if she's a researcher(expert), but you have statistical data about a whole group of experts? How?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Well is she?
You tell me, you claim to have a mechanism to tell. How do we establish that she has "dedicated their life to studying a real topic"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
What if the fortune teller claims to be an expert in quantum physics and that she is using tachyon that travel backward in time to predict the future?Okay fine, you can only be an expert at real subjects. You can nit pick my definition all you want, but your not even getting to the heart of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Under that definition a fortune teller is an expert at predicting the future.And expert is someone who has dedicated their life to studying a topic, and they are so well versed in that subject that they are more likely to be right about it than other people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You claimed that results are irrelevant without argument. The point of my analogy is to show that you have it backwards, argument is irrelevant without results.
Your example did not prove that. You may not care about the explanation if the car isn't fixed, but that does not mean the explanation doesn't prove expertise.
So there's an example to make that one point, which it does. Anyone can make a convincing argument, it's not till they prove themselves by demonstrating that they have it right that we can begin to evaluate them as an expert.
The convincing argument is demonstration.
The car working is just another argument. The implicit premise is "The only way this vehicle will work again is if an expert repairs it."
I know that in our every day life we need to trust the expertise of others, there is too much for one man to know it allThen what are we talking about?
The responsibilities of the individual in social epistemology. The fact that "trust the experts" is never a valid argument because there is no situation where you should be trying to convince other people of a conclusion you don't understand the argument for.
I have often said "let god speak for himself", similarly I say "let the experts speak for themselves". Those who can't comprehend the argument should privately invest their trust based on the fuzzy and imperfect proxies for expertise and leave it at that.
We know the kind of abuse and madness that can arise when people play telephone or convince themselves they're instruments of god. It's all risk and no reward.
Repeat the experiment, don't trust the claim.You just said the opposite
I did not. If you think there is a contradiction you misunderstand. Probably confusing contexts.
establishing expertise is itself a rational process, the best argument, and therefore in debate and in science (which is a subset of rational epistemology) there is absolutely no place for trust.When the phrase "trust the experts" is uttered, no one is talking about science and/or debate.
Which is the problem.
Of course if I'm conducting a scientific experiment I don't get to say "my results are X because that's what other experts told me to report".
Good
The phrase refers to decision making, and people making such decisions don't often have the time or even the literacy to put on a lab coat and figure it out themselves.
It is in all cases used as shorthand for "Trust the experts I trust" or "trust my experts.
Also, everyone should be trained in logic so that they are at least armed to spot most of the fake experts. Negative filtration is much easier than positive establishment.
Also, it is not unattainable that the large majority of people are given a general education in science. A good deal is already in most curricula if people actually remembered what they were taught. Most scientific illiteracy I have encountered is pre-highschool, i.e. if they went to highschool and passed a test on biology or physics they forgot it all.
in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.Of course he is. You simply defined a prophet as "not an expert".No, you did. You claimed that his status as a prophet from God was his explanation for being able to heal people.
Yes
That's notably different from "I am able to heal people because I understand how all of this works and if you learned what I have learned you can do it too".
What's the practical difference if the secular "expert" refuses to give reasons (teach)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don't see the point in pretending you've been paying attention. You know nothing because you wish to know nothing.I already challenged you, in depth on the example you started this thread off with.
...and you thought ended in a complete dismissal of all skepticism and evidence huh? *shrug* horse meet water, moving on.
If 10,000 people cheat in an election and 5k cheat for one side while 5k cheat for the other...
So we shouldn't care about cheating because it is mathematically possible that the cheating cancels out and has no net effect....
How about you give me access to your bank account, I give you access to my bank account; and we just spend whatever we want. It is mathematically possible that we spend the exact same amount and thus no wealth transfer occurs.
Sound like a game you want to play?
Cheating is not democracy, even in the extremely unlikely event that both sides can and do cheat with the exact same effect.
So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraud
Of course it is.
you also need to prove that the fraud benefited one side over the other.
No I do not. An unknown upper limit to the fraud or an upper limit to the fraud that is in excess of the margin of victory is by definition untrustworthy.
Fake election = untrusted results = outcome that could have been changed by fraud for all we know
You haven't even bothered to try and make that case.
and I won't. I can't even quantify the fraud much less figure out which ballots are fraudulent and who those ballots were cast for. If I could that would mean the election was auditable, which would be inherently more trustworthy and the entire situation could be resolved by an audit.
That's right they listed Biden Harris as a client.And...?
A client is someone who pays you.
The Biden Harris campaign paid an organization that submitted fraudulent voter registrations and then went into hiding when it was discovered. This is what they call "evidence of left-tribe election fraud" in the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Bitcoin by the very definition is a Ponzi scheme.
It certainly is not. A ponzi scheme makes the appearance of a successful investment by using new investors to pay old investors.
Bitcoin was not designed as an investment. It doesn't pay anything and was never intended to. You can't call USD a ponzi scheme just because some people think of it as an investment. People do play games with fiat currency just as they do with BTC.
it has no physical value like a hard asset.
Neither do USD or bonds. The value of gold as jewelry and a metal is a pale shadow of its price which is controlled by all the people trying to use it as a stable store of wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Thank goodness for the way back machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240620215936/https://www.fieldandmedia.com/
That's right they listed Biden Harris as a client.
Created:
Posted in:
This thread is filled with the evidence.It's filled with anecdotes, many of which (and probably most) are not even legitimate examples.
I don't see the point in pretending you've been paying attention. You know nothing because you wish to know nothing.
then there's the fact you haven't provided a single reason to believe whatever levels of voter fraud are actually taking place benefit ones side over the other in any meaningful
Post #171.
Edit: They took down their website https://www.fieldandmedia.com/ just like 2020. When they get caught they scrub the web.
But that of course doesn't matter to the Trump conspiracy wing.
The solution is the same no matter who is cheating and by how much. So why should it matter? We don't need to agree on that.
How convenient...for cheaters, yes.For people who aren't concerned about facts and logic.
Why should the in-auditability of so called elections convenience those people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
First, you can certainly verify or disprove the mechanics expertise by his explanation if you have enough expertise yourself to understand it or to understand that he is not using terms correctly.Irrelevant. If you're an expert yourself then you have no need to trust the experts
Expertise is a spectrum.
Second, causing the car to run does not prove he is an expert. Some problems solve themselves, an overheated coolant system, engine oil that was too cold until it was brought into the shop, a computer that was reset when he blindly unplugged the battery.Irrelevant. It was just a hypothetical example, you're missing the whole point.
Well if you were trying to make a general point shouldn't you be able to find a specific example that makes it?
Moreover if "results" are defined as "fixing something"I stated very clearly that expertise is demonstrated by a proven track record of results.
I'll state very clearly that such does not prove expertise it proves effectiveness of some behavior. True expertise results in effectiveness, but effectiveness does not prove true expertise.
Hippocrates helped a lot of people (one can presume) but he was wrong about humors. Was he a medical expert?
Don't strawman this. I know that in our every day life we need to trust the expertise of others, there is too much for one man to know it all; but this is the order of authority:
1.) Reason, there is no substitute, there is no replacement, there is nothing better
2.) Effectiveness (a track record of results)
3.) The esteem of already trusted entities
4.) The esteem of the untrusted general population
2-4 are proxies for (1). In every case whatever power you have to evaluate (1) overrides 2-4. There are indicators of non-expertise and #1 on that list is a refusal to give reasons when asked. All true experts have reasons. Anyone who is effective without reasons is like a mechanic who just got lucky or Hippocrates and his humors. They are not experts and their theories and proclamations are not trustworthy.
You gave an example of someone claiming they are a prophet of God as their explanation for their positive results.
Yes
The topic is about whether it is rational to "trust the experts"
No, it's about the fact that there is no mechanism to establish expertise with certainty but to become, to some extent, an expert. That establishing expertise is itself a rational process, the best argument, and therefore in debate and in science (which is a subset of rational epistemology) there is absolutely no place for trust.
Repeat the experiment, don't trust the claim. This isn't an arbitrary rule, it's implied by reason. Science only became distinct from religious philosophy and theology when it eliminated trust from the equation and thereby became a fully rational process.
in your hypothetical the man isn't even claiming to be one.
Of course he is. You simply defined a prophet as "not an expert". A cultural bias that most of humanity did not share up until about five minutes ago.
Yet that was chosen intentionally, how can you tell the difference between a false prophet and an expert when both can produce "good results" consistently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
ConsistentConstantly made up with no evidence to fit your narrative.
This thread is filled with the evidence.
Wouldn't help, the fake elections are unauditable by design.How convenient
...for cheaters, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I feel like they may be missing the point.
"I bet I'll be dead by morning, if I'm right I'll be rich"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates."results" that are a not a subset of "the best argument" is irrelevant.That's ridiculous.A mechanic can explain to you all day long why your car is not running and what needs to be done to fix it, it's not till your car is actually running again that he proves he knows what he's talking about and should therefore be taken seriously.
That is wrong on both counts.
First, you can certainly verify or disprove the mechanics expertise by his explanation if you have enough expertise yourself to understand it or to understand that he is not using terms correctly.
Second, causing the car to run does not prove he is an expert. Some problems solve themselves, an overheated coolant system, engine oil that was too cold until it was brought into the shop, a computer that was reset when he blindly unplugged the battery.
It is a strong indicator, but not the best. The man who knows why the car stopped working and can predict that the same thing will happen after you take the car home is the truer expert.
Moreover if "results" are defined as "fixing something" then what has Anthony Fauci fixed in your sight? What about the people who run the fed? The EPA?
You've witnessed nothing of the sort. All you have is their arguments and in those particular cases you don't even have that.
If I went back in time (or to sentinel island) with a bunch of antibiotics claiming to be a prophet of god would "the results" be all the "miracles" I did?One does not need to have subject matter expertise when they are able to wield the power of God. Wrong subject.
Antibiotics are "the power of god"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
I Google their name and see what other experts in the field have to say.
Wait a second, how did you populate the set of "experts" in the first place?
You say "other experts" but that implies you've already identified a group of experts that can be used to validate new candidates. How did you validate the first expert when there were no other recognized experts?
Basically a shorter version of what ebuc just said.
ebuc is insane and I rarely read his posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The reason they have stopped complaining is that they think it was "too big to rig" that the level of fraud which is possible without even further detection (for we have certainly detected some see this thread) was insufficient to overcome the sheer majority of people which have rejected the deep state candidates.lolIf you lose, it's because they cheated. If you win, it's because you won so big the cheating didn't matter.Pathetic.
Consistent.
Maricopa county has been an epicenter of proven dirty election subversionMaybe they should hire an independent party to come in and investigate.
Wouldn't help, the fake elections are unauditable by design.
how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?You mean like put together a voter fraud commission?
Like push for proof of citizenship coordinated by a federal database of all citizens (something they will need anyway for the mass deportations) at the very least or ideally a biometric blockchain for all federal elections.
Nothing will happen. He doesn't care about election integrity, he cares about winning.
I already identified that as a possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
The one thing I do check is if they are actually an expert or not
How?
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'll grant you that there are ways to make the time go by. Maybe they can store their consciousness. If nothing else they can just fly near the speed of light for a while.
That wouldn't be a rational thing to do though. The universe would still age, and there is a time limit. That's 999 million years of entropy build up sacrificed for nothing. 999 million years less for their perfected humanity to enjoy the cosmos before heat death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So who or what created/instigated Bitcoin?
The blockchain theory was made possible by public private encryption schemes, after that people started thinking of ways to use blockchains to establish trust and one of those was a public ledger with private modifications.
There were several whitepapers and prototypes, bitcoin was essentially created by one man at the start, but it is by nature an open source project.
Imagine a big sheet of paper in the town square. It records transactions between people and by adding up the transactions anyone can calculate what anyone else has in their "account".
By magic nothing can be erased from it and also by magic only the person who 'owns' the 'account' can write down a transaction where money comes out of his/her account and goes into someone else.
The magic is the private key, it is an encryption key (a long series of characters, not quite a password because you can't pick any one you want; but close enough). So long as you can keep that secret nobody in the world can produce a valid transaction draining money from your account. Adding money is different, you can't stop that (in bitcoin, more complicated systems support that).
Given this the other question can be answered:
And are you saying that there is now no human control, input or output?
There is no backdoor, admin mode, central authority.
That "big sheet of paper" is a file, a big file, I have a partial copy on my hard drive as I type this is the only thing everyone who uses the system needs to agree on. I can open it in notepad++ and add to it, but that addition won't be valid according to the algorithm that defines bitcoin. If I tried to post it to the internet (via various community nodes) it would be rejected and I would probably be added to a list of incredibly stupid scammers since anyone using tested software to add to the ledger would not make such mistakes.
The apps Best.Korea references are just tools which know the algorithm and allow you to monitor the state of the ledger and move your own money around by creating valid modifications to the ledger.
It is very important to know that there are applications that interact with the blockchain directly and there are other apps made by companies which interact with an user profile you created with that company. In those cases it's more like a traditional bank, they have the secret key to "your account" and as you might guess they actually control it so it's not really yours if you can't trust that company.
This is the mechanism by which people have been scammed in cryptocurrency. They don't understand it, they trust a company to do it for them, then that company takes the money and runs.
Since there is no backdoor or admin mode they can get away with it. If a real bank tried this governments would trace the fraudulent transactions and there is a good chance they could reverse them all even if they have to threaten other banks to do it. Banks that won't reverse fraudulent transactions tend to be black listed.
To say it is "out of human control" isn't quite accurate. We have to agree on the ledger to use. If we wanted to, as a collective, we could start a new ledger or reject transactions from the current ledger even if they are mathematically valid. For instance we could add steps in all applications to reject modifications that are associated with child sex slavery (if you could identify such transactions).
The key is that it is certainly outside of central control or the control of nefarious actors like hackers.
No government could forcibly remove value from your account. No bank run can occur. There is no means for someone to impersonate you and steal your money (unless you let the secret of your private key out).
Those are the reasons blockchain has value and the reason it spikes in value every-time a big government starts making tyrannical sounds.
Fiat currency can be devalued. Gold can be stolen. BTC is invulnerable to both failings, but like all currencies it is useless if nobody accepts it as payment. Many people believe that is inevitable and will be a one way latch.
It's easy to imagine a fiat currency being devalued to the point that people switch to crypto to carry on a "black market", such black markets have been present in all other inflationary crises.
However because of the nature of crypto there is no way to force people to stop using it nor is there any reason to stop using it besides giving governments and banks power.
Still, the valuation of BTC in dollars is driven by the people who are playing the same stock gambling game that is played on the stock market. They are only doing it so they can gain at the expense of some 'sucker' who buys and sells at the wrong time. They have no intention of using BTC to buy anything nor do they believe it will have value in the long run. They started with USD and they want to end with more USD (or whatever their local currency is).
There are flaws in BTC that make it ineligible to be the final currency of humanity. However we can switch from one cryptocurrency to another. Such a conversion, while complicated, is possible and therefore it is not entirely irrational to think BTC will continue to have value as fiat dies.
The reason to do this would be adoption motive. People may intellectually see the need for a better system than BTC, but if all their wealth is in BTC, they won't give that up unless it can somehow translate over.
A responsible liberal government would adopt a more full featured cryptocurrency as the national currency if for no other reason than to enforce a constitutional requirement that the national currency not become a means of secret taxation via inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
I recall on debate.org when people actually took these popularity contests very seriously, to the point they really thought that "winning" a "debate" somehow had some relation to reality.
Remembering that Best.Korea could be called "the best" "debater" in this mini-game sport thing is a most fitting end to the story of this fallacy.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
If we're a version of them then their biotech is the same as ours which means either all life on our planet is (which is of one system) derived from life on their homeworld or they derived from Earth (this is their homeworld).This plan is a billion years old?I don't know. Maybe.
If it's the former, and they seeded it, that means their plan is as old as the oldest life on Earth and that means it's a billion years old. That's inexplicable patience.
What we would expect to see is the sudden appearance (in geological terms) of a complete ecosystem in relatively recent times, like a million years ago tops. Why would they wait a thousand times longer than they needed to?
Thats 999 million years of waiting around just for a human-like (like them) creature to appear, preprogrammed into the DNA or not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We also tend to lose perspective of the vastness of time and space by wrongly thinking 100 years is a meaningful time span, or 1 light year is a meaningful distance.
I don't think most people gain that perspective in the first place. They know intellectually that warp drive is somehow needed but I don't think they have any inclination about the kind of power you would need to send a message from our system to another system so that it could be picked up by a boom box radio, nor the insane accuracy (and collimation) that would be required to focus a beam onto a planet in another star system.
At the same time the stars are old and intelligent life is resilient.
The idea of persons traversing the distance between stars may be impossible but the idea of information doing so via contact-probes is not.
The conclusions of logic and the intuition of average people (as informed by popular sci-fi in most cases) are very different and this leads to many people trusting intuition that is wrong.
There's a lot of "human ethnocentrism" when discussing "aliens"
Yes, again it's a situation where the underlying complexity is inaccessible to common intuition.
What else would aliens look like but humans? Well the answers are nearly unbounded. If they did look like humans that would be 1/100,000,000,000 *made up number.
Assuming no common ancestry.
and of course aliens in TV shows must be played by humans. Some people are aware of how absurd this is but most are so "inside the box" that they see klingon ridges or big black eyes on a grey and think "oooh so alien".
Even when writers try to branch out and be more "alien" they tend to simply expand the copy-pasting from human to life on Earth in general. Bug aliens, foxy aliens (furies appreciate the effort), tentacle octopus aliens!
As if mimicking any life form on Earth is any more likely than the other?
An alien preying mantis is just as unlikely as an alien humanoid.
Of course they'll have bodies and there will be chemistry going on, and there will be an Earth creature that is most similar, but those similarities will on average be extremely shallow and fundamental. Bilateral symmetry for example, probably exists in many alien biospheres because there aren't that many options and symmetry of some kind will be universal.
So I'm saying even with the imaginations about aliens aren't anthropocentric they're terrocentric (Earth centered) or the aliens are inexplicably obsessed with Earth or humans.
When these whistleblowers or people who claim to have an inside scoop from talking with aliens have these stories, at the very least I expect the grand truth they give to fit the full body of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's why they have to "successfully" cheat. If that means playing the "judge game"
Judges are chosen by ballot or elected officials.
So if they never stop cheating we'll never get any judges or AGs.
On the national level it appears as if it was too big to rig, but if in particular states it may not be the case. I see no reason to oppose the federal government forcing secure elections on every state.
We don't even know which states are swing states vs which ones the left-tribe simply has an enormous capacity to cheat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That is not true if the dishonest control the state courts and prosecutors.If Republicans (successfully) cheat enough, the laws will change.
They simply need to use the existing laws against republican cheaters while refusing to investigate left-tribe cheaters.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to evidence. If you think they're lying about everything from geological stratification to genetics then there is nothing to do but do the experiments yourself.Why is there so much evidence that our form of life evolved on this planet?Who said that? The fucking scientists? I remember you opening a thread about fucking scientists appealing to authority. So...
The aliens say they seeded all form of life in this planet and in the case of humans they accelarated the evolution introducing new human species.
This plan is a billion years old?
Through this "experiment" the aliens want to get a self sufficient human race that don't destroy themselves.
Doesn't this imply they destroy themselves? If they didn't and they're related to us then what are they trying to improve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's somebody's job and the courts have as a whole said "not it".how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?It's not his job.
The only way to get people to get upset at cheating is to cheat more.
So after they're upset then what?
We pass a law? We start to enforce existing laws?
That's what Trump & this supposed majority can do. If they try.
Democrats ADMIT To Counting Illegal Ballots In Attempt To OVERTHROW Senate Election From Republican!
Core evidence saved.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Why is there so much evidence that our form of life evolved on this planet?To gurantee that the experiment is doing well the earth is being look over by the aliens that seeded the human being in the earth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
if you're not an expert in virology and you dont trust anyone to tell you what to think, what do you base your opinion on?
That's not the question. The question is what you repeat to others with confidence. What you insist that others believe lest you call them fools.
any third grade logic about the scientific method lacks expertise when they try to pick apart the expert's opinions. the only way I can figure someone wouldn't use third grade logic against experts, is to find some experts who in the minority, or even a fringe minority. at that point, they're 'appealing to authority' by your measure. so which do you do, use third grade logic against experts, or appeal to fringe expert authority? if you do neither, how do you form your opinion on the effectiveness of the vaccines?
What is "third grade logic"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Debate is not where we rely on trust. Debate is where trust is vindicated or betrayed.Experts become authorities in their fields by demonstrating their knowledge and abilities
Which is to say they have the best argument.
with a proven track record of results, not by winning debates.
"results" that are a not a subset of "the best argument" is irrelevant.
If I went back in time (or to sentinel island) with a bunch of antibiotics claiming to be a prophet of god would "the results" be all the "miracles" I did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
definitely too big to rig
I hope so, but since a theory that has no predictive power is worthless; how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?
It has been such a central issue to his rhetoric since the introduction of mass mail ballots that to apparently forget about it would necessitate some form of dishonesty. At the most generous he never really believed there was cheating so now he doesn't care, and at the worst, like I described; he has joined with the cheaters.
Are you willing to go on record and predict that he will make significant moves (not just talk) to secure the elections in the next two years?
Created:
Posted in:
I have seen since this latest election many people say "what happened to voter fraud suddenly everyone went quiet".
The reason they have stopped complaining is that they think it was "too big to rig" that the level of fraud which is possible without even further detection (for we have certainly detected some see this thread) was insufficient to overcome the sheer majority of people which have rejected the deep state candidates.
Based on certain patterns such as failure to vote down-ballot for republicans I now fear that Trump made some kind of deal with the cheaters (the deep state) in which they would allow him to become president, but they would use an apparently (but not truly) right-tribe majority in senate and house to impede him such that he would appear to be trying to carry out his promises but would be unable to, specifically on those which are most objectionable to the deep state:
Election Integrity
International Peace
That is by definition a conspiracy theory and one which is far from proven, but if after two years we find everything delivered as Trump claims except no one has heard about election integrity and "unfortunately" the foreign wars continued and expanded that will support this theory.
I am a single issue voter. Honesty is all I care about. There is no point in comparing the promises of liars and honest men because the promises of liars are lies. Therefore there is no reason to discuss policy when the policy of liars is whatever benefits their secret agenda.
I do not find it to be a coincidence that one of the candidates to be left off the podium is Kari Lake in Arizona. Maricopa county has been an epicenter of proven dirty election subversion. Kari Lake isn't just a right-triber or MAGA hatter, she is a single issue candidate (more or less). She cares about election integrity above all else. She would not be convinced to shut up about it and neither will I.
I deeply hope that Trump did not make this deal, or if he did he plans to double cross them and restore democracy to the united states. I don't agree with the majority on many things, democracy is not sound as moral theory, but practically democracy is the only powerful tool against corruption and dishonesty for the time being.
I also have two more particularly disturbing pieces of evidence for Colorado and Pennsylvania:
Created:
-->
@Owen_T
Nothing burger.
communist, marxists, fascists, radical left thugs is not a race.
Created: