• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again this is Philosophy Tactics. Once a question is asked we aren't allowed to take it off the table for some reason, even if it winds up being just a giant meaningless nothingburger.

It's "Well when there's smoke there's fire" except there's no smoke.
 
shuttlt said:
If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

That is in a manner asking for a negative to be proved.

The correct approach is to ask what evidence there is for such a conclusion and then evaluate the evidence.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile and would continue to believe it whatever the result of any investigation that found to the contrary, no, it probably wouldn't.

Dave
Click to expand...
You don't know that.
 
shuttlt said:
Yes, I have already been corrected on that. It doesn't alter the point though. Fraud does occur that impacts the results of elections.
Click to expand...

Pedophilia exists. Should we discuss whether or not you are one just based on the "Well this crime exists somewhere" standard?
 
shuttlt said:
If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

What’s the minimum number of people who need to believe without evidence that you are a pedophile before you are comfortable with the police investigating you for it?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again this is Philosophy Tactics. Once a question is asked we aren't allowed to take it off the table for some reason, even if it winds up being just a giant meaningless nothingburger.

It's "Well when there's smoke there's fire" except there's no smoke.
Click to expand...

It’s more like:

“How do you know there is no smoke?”

-Because the smoke alarm hasn’t gone off

“Perhaps the smoke alarm isn’t working”

-I’ve pressed the test button and it worked

“Ah but perhaps the smoke alarm test button isn’t working”

-Fine. When and where do you smell smoke?

“I didn’t say I had”

-Then why are you asking if there is no smoke?

“Because there could have been or there could be smoke now that you, the smoke alarm and me can’t smell!”
 
What bothers me about this discussion is that there is no honesty from the Trumpist side - they know full well that Trump lost the election fair and square. What they are doing is participating in a naked attempt to subvert democracy on Trump's behalf. It's rather serious and we should be calling them out for it rather than engage in quippy debunking of their many ludicrous claims.

What the Trumpists are doing in this thread is perpetuating an attempt to steal the election, and they know full well what they are doing.
 
uke2se said:
What bothers me about this discussion is that there is no honesty from the Trumpist side - they know full well that Trump lost the election fair and square. What they are doing is participating in a naked attempt to subvert democracy on Trump's behalf. It's rather serious and we should be calling them out for it rather than engage in quippy debunking of their many ludicrous claims.

What the Trumpists are doing in this thread is perpetuating an attempt to steal the election, and they know full well what they are doing.
Click to expand...

They are just asking questions!



;)
 
So now instead of the simple "JAQing Off" and "Gish Gallop" we have to let "Gish Galloping Off" into the discussion.
 
shuttlt said:
The Republicans want election security, at least partly, because election security favours them. Democrats are opposed to election security, at least partly, because election security disfavours them. It is going to take an apocalyptic scandal to implement what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


And yet it's the Republicans in the Senate, Mitch particularly, who have blocked every election security bill that's been put before them. In February, they blocked three in one day.
 
shuttlt said:
The Republicans want election security, at least partly, because election security favours them. Democrats are opposed to election security, at least partly, because election security disfavours them. It is going to take an apocalyptic scandal to implement what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Can we put this nonsense to rest; this stupid idea that wanting fairness is the same thing as being biased for the people who don't cheat?

"Democrats want things to be run fairly, Republicans don't" doesn't make this a "Political difference" that you are just "Biased for the Democrats" in wanting.
 
Last edited:
BENFORD'S LAW

1. It is an empirical law within mathematics, it is recognized as a tool by all Mathematicians.
2. This is a process, it does not determine anything outside of the distribution of numbers.
3. The results need to be evaluated.
4. The results do not determine if something is accurate or inaccurate, that is left up to an individual or individuals.
5. There will be occurrences where Benford's Law will not be the proper tool but election results is not one of them.
6. Using Benford's Law as a tool to observe the distribution of votes counted is valid as long as the proper criteria is present. (defined universe,at least one magnitude of numbers, numbers are naturally established, sufficient sample size).
7. Both Democrats and Republicans use this method... this is not new.
8. Benford's Law is valid in ferreting out anomalies; those anomalies very well could have a strong explanation. It doesn't automatically mean something is nefarious if Benford's pattern is not observed.
9. I suggested (along with many others) to use Benford's Law as it is neutral, a starting point is needed if this election will be contested, and math is a great Arbiter.
10. To assume for someone suggesting Benford's Law is a Republican (or supports Trump) is incorrect to highest degree.
11. My father has his Doctorate in Math (Applied Mathematics), my son has his Math Doctorate in Graph Theory, at this moment you can apply many fallacies but I utilize them to the fullest. As for me... I did not pass my dissertation in Differential Geometry so my knowledge of math is certainly not up to my father's and/or my son's level.

As for me... I am still a Bernie Sanders person but he did not make the cut.

Chris Rock: "There's math, everything else is opinion".
 
johnny karate said:
Gosh, it’s almost as if Republicans don’t care about election security and shuttit is just making baseless allegations.
Click to expand...

They do care, it's just that they have a different definition of election security. In their case it's ensuring that only the right kinds of people vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom