Let me lay it out for you carefully then.

You do not have sufficient evidence that no shenanigans happened that influenced the outcome of the election to rightfully call those who think there was shenanigans delusional.

So, no - if you think the election was influenced - you are not delusional. That is my point. You may not be correct to say the election was influenced, but given the overall electoral conditions, you may be correct.

The point is, you are calling those who do not hold to your biased and uninformed preconceptions delusional. Which is something I find rather silly.

"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception"

First of all there is not superior evidence that no shenanigans occurred. You will undoubtedly claim that you cannot prove a negative, which is true but irrelevant here because you can create a strong case in this context - at least hypothetically. Given the known vulnerabilities of our electoral system, there is no strong case or body of evidence discouraging a rational belief that shenanigans occurred.

Even polls were split on who would win. Saying that a poll you favored was obviously right because it favored Obama and Obama won is circular logic in this case. If Romney had won, the "other" side would be making the same claims. Objectively speaking, the odds that shenanigans influenced the race would still be unchanged.

Secondly, Dogma is going to be responsible for many people thinking the election was possibly stolen. Dogma is not a pathology.

"""You don't know" is 'guarding' your point. So is "or not". Underlining premise is "its not a delusion". This premise is false. You stated it. Now you are trying to get out of saying it. Not going to happen.""

I think your twisting semantics into a pretzel here trying to imply that I am "trying to get out of saying" anything. What I am saying is that you are wrong to cast about with insults because people do not agree with your various prejudices. Which is what I have been saying the whole time, though it has been amusing watching you play semantics games to try and justify yourself.

Last edited by Derid; 12/11/12 06:18 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)