Cont: Trump et al continued “2020 election” conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
trustbutverify said:
What FB source? Be specific.
Click to expand...



I see no reason to expose some individual. Especially where it is unconfirmed and possibly bogus...why would their name matter to you?

Maybe they copied it from elsewhere.

It could as easily have been someone emailing their idea to me, or anyone.

Compared to determining the material's veracity, the source is irrelevant...kinda like how science works.
Dont worry someone will find it and tell you.




Why do you ask??
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
I see no reason to expose some individual. Especially where it is unconfirmed and possibly bogus...why would their name matter to you?

Maybe they copied it from elsewhere.

It could as easily have been someone emailing their idea to me, or anyone.

Compared to determining the material's veracity, the source is irrelevant...kinda like how science works. Dont worry someone will find it and tell you.




Why do you ask??
Click to expand...

We have no other tools to determine the claim's veracity, and no reason other than an unnamed rando on social media to suspect the claim is even worth wondering about.

This is really basic epistomology.

There are a massive, practically uncountable number of claims being made every second of every day. It is functionally impossible to investigate or even catalogue all of them. Without a supporting evidence or a trustworthy claimant, there is no good reason to devote a moment's thought to one of these claims, no reason to think it likely to be true.

So without supporting evidence,or a trustworthy source, you might as well say a ghost whispered it to you, or you read it in tea leaves.
 
Bubba said:
I see no reason to expose some individual. Especially where it is unconfirmed and possibly bogus...why would their name matter to you?

Maybe they copied it from elsewhere.

It could as easily have been someone emailing their idea to me, or anyone.

Compared to determining the material's veracity, the source is irrelevant...kinda like how science works.
Dont worry someone will find it and tell you.




Why do you ask??
Click to expand...
You were very concerned about chain-of-custody just an hour ago...

This is the same thing, only for words instead of physical objects.

Your paraphrasing of what someone else said doesn't establish where it came from and if it retained integrity in transit.

We can't even establish if the source could have credibly accessed information such as the whereabouts of voting machines used in the recent election.

I think you have a well-documented track record of incredulity at unnamed sources quoted by respectable journalistic operations, but now go full "victim mode" when we want more than "I read it on facebook?"

Hypocrisy isn't flattering on you.
 
Bubba said:
Just something to chew on. The At&T building that was involved in bombing yesterday, happens to be the where the voting machines were taken to conduct a audit of machines. So a raggy RV is pulled in then police recieve a call about shots fired. They arrive to find a count down tht sounds very official an allows for everyone to be evacuated. Are bells going off yet?

- seen on FB
Click to expand...

Assuming that's all true, it's worth considering who the likeliest culprits would be. Simple answer? Radicalized right-wingers trying to take things into their own hands after being fed massive amounts of disinformation.
 
eerok said:
In reality it's over, but in Trump's mind it's not. So I can enjoy watching him lose two more times, on the 6th and 20th of January.
Click to expand...
Not only is Diaper Don the worst president in U.S. history, he's the losingest president in U.S. history. He is however, very good at the grift, and his moronic supporters can't help but send their money to a man who claims to be a billionaire.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!
 
Cavemonster said:
We have no other tools to determine the claim's veracity, and no reason other than an unnamed rando on social media to suspect the claim is even worth wondering about.

This is really basic epistomology.

There are a massive, practically uncountable number of claims being made every second of every day. It is functionally impossible to investigate or even catalogue all of them. Without a supporting evidence or a trustworthy claimant, there is no good reason to devote a moment's thought to one of these claims, no reason to think it likely to be true.

So without supporting evidence,or a trustworthy source, you might as well say a ghost whispered it to you, or you read it in tea leaves.
Click to expand...


Thats about it.

In this case, the allusion to a possible false flag attack is noteworthy. That certain LE agency has been known to set up mentally defective youngsters and then arrest them, for kudos.

I think this FB poster was suggesting something like that could be involved IF there were voting machines being examined in the building.

If the location actually was where voting machines were being examined it gets interesting.


For example someone may wish to determine which LE agency has been known to set up mentally defective youngsters and then arrest them, for kudos.
 
Aridas said:
Assuming that's all true, it's worth considering who the likeliest culprits would be. Simple answer? Radicalized right-wingers trying to take things into their own hands after being fed massive amounts of disinformation.
Click to expand...


Of course.

As in False Flag 101. Its a time honored tradition, as you know.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
You were very concerned about chain-of-custody just an hour ago...

This is the same thing, only for words instead of physical objects.

Your paraphrasing of what someone else said doesn't establish where it came from and if it retained integrity in transit.

We can't even establish if the source could have credibly accessed information such as the whereabouts of voting machines used in the recent election.

I think you have a well-documented track record of incredulity at unnamed sources quoted by respectable journalistic operations, but now go full "victim mode" when we want more than "I read it on facebook?"

Hypocrisy isn't flattering on you.
Click to expand...



Its an unverified claim made by some individual on FB, not a media source, (fake or otherwise).

Get a grip
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Thats about it.

In this case, the allusion to a possible false flag attack is noteworthy.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, for the very simple reasons I described in my other post.

No claim without evidence or credibility of source is noteworthy, ever. This is an incredibly important quality of claims. You cannot move through the world and imagine you're operating around some semblance of truth if you consider things noteworthy without one of those elements.

That is how knowing things works.
 
Cavemonster said:
No, it isn't, for the very simple reasons I described in my other post.

No claim without evidence or credibility of source is noteworthy, ever. This is an incredibly important quality of claims. You cannot move through the world and imagine you're operating around some semblance of truth if you consider things noteworthy without one of those elements.

That is how knowing things works.
Click to expand...

Then its all in the definition of noteworthy.

I find the assertion of voting machines, and the allusion to false flag (or something devious like FF) to be noteworthy, and maybe even thought provoking....


by Aridas:
Assuming that's all true, it's worth considering who the likeliest culprits would be. Simple answer? Radicalized right-wingers trying to take things into their own hands after being fed massive amounts of disinformation.
Click to expand...
 
Bubba said:
Its an unverified claim made by some individual on FB, not a media source, (fake or otherwise).

Get a grip
Click to expand...
Asking for follow ups on your unsourced, unverified claims is not an outlandish reaction where I need to be rebuked.

Describing sensible reasons why such a request makes sense and fits your own pattern of not taking unsourced claims at face value even less so.

Engage with me in good faith dialogue please.

Smug suggestions of other people's emotional volatility when no such volatility is being displayed is an immature tactic for thought interruption.

Don't do it again.
 
Aridas said:
It's a time honored tradition for certain groups to invoke false flags to try to push responsibility off onto others without valid evidence, at least.
Click to expand...


Here's something "noteworthy"

Compare search results from Google and DuckDuckGo...
(google is the one caught hiding stuff from people in some parts of the world)

Search term: List false flag attacks

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=List+false+flag+attacks&atb=v253-3


https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=List+false+flag+attacks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom