Originally Posted By: sini
Derid, walk away from this thread. You have no argument left. It was shown to be a fallacious (wrong) and invalid (badly phrased). No amount of hand waving or teeth gnashing will change this.

Re-read post #110626 if you have any questions.


No, but I just might nickname you "Non Sequitur"

Your conclusions do not follow from the evidence. No amount of saying otherwise will change that fact. If you choose to ignore reason, and rely on verbal posturing then I dont know what to say in that case.

You also make the assertion "First, you are applying unreasonable standard of having evidence of no tampering. "


Something you would do well to remember, is I am not and never had asserted that tampering occurred - I am saying that the security holes are too large to deny reasonable probability that it occurred. The fact is we have no way of knowing, and thus insulting people for holding the view is just a reflection of your own dogmatic preconceptions.


Second you say "Second, you are asserting that magnitude of tampering was significant enough to change the outcome of historically not close (332 v 206) election. If we extend this reasoning to other, much closer, elections then we can conclude that most US elections were won because of tampering. I hope you’d agree that such result is an absurd conclusion. Third, this is formally invalid argument."

First of all, your definition of closeness here incorrect. Those electoral votes stem from individual votes, which as I have already demonstrated was a spread of 300k. The possible shenanigans all target *tallies of individual votes* and thereby the electoral votes, not the electoral votes directly. Therefore the only figure worth looking at is the number of individual votes required to change the electoral votes. Since your argument rests on the distance of electoral votes, not of individual votes - you have again invalidated yourself. The closeness metric in use here is the 300k vote spread.

Secondly since we are talking about electronic voting, the number of elections with possible tampering of this matter will only include those going back to about the 2004 when electronic voting became relatively widespread. Additionally, there is in fact a body of evidence suggesting the possibility of tampering during the 2004 Bush vs Kerry contest. You are trying to tie in all historically close elections though, and thus fall into the reductio ad absurdum fallacy - there is no reason to question the validity of an election where unsecured electronic voting devices and tallying methods were not in widespread use.

If you would like to string together yet more fallacies and try to pass them off as an irrefutable position please feel free. I enjoy squashing them.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)