Originally Posted By: sini
Above is my original post. My point was - people calling election STOLEN are DELUSIONAL.


This is the problem with your viewpoint: Just because they believe something that probably isn't true does not make them delusional. I could just as easily call you delusional for believing beyond any doubt that the election was not stolen. Neither side could prove their position. Just so we're clear, I tend to agree with you that people that refuse to accept the outcome of the election are probably deluding themselves, but I would not go so far as to lay a blanket label of 'delusional' on everyone who is of the opinion that there were shenanigans, simply because of how easy voter fraud is to commit these days.

Also, and I believe Derid made this point earlier in the thread, the poll was so poorly worded that it becomes a causal oversimplification and a false dilemma. The fact is that anyone stupid enough to actually respond to this poll deserves to be lambasted in the article, regardless of which option they chose. Even the article itself points out this glaring flaw in the poll.


Originally Posted By: sini
It in no uncertain words stated STOLEN ELECTION in the link, quote and the article also talks about this. Survey question also talks about STOLEN ELECTION in no uncertain words.

So when Derid objected to this article, he implicitly agreed with STOLEN part.

His later re-phrasing to "election fraud possibly occurred" simply does not flow if you interpreted literally, it does not contradict MY POINT. The only way it could make sense if he is suppressing his premise, and this is exactly what he is doing, because otherwise it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.


For clarity, what exactly is your point in this argument? That the people who agreed that the election was stolen are delusional? See my previous statements. If your point is otherwise, go ahead and state it clearly for me.

I disagree with your assertion that Derid's objection to the article is the same as implicit agreement with part of its content. That doesn't really make any sense. Again, I believe that Derid's objection was to your opinion that there was no possibility of tampering in the election. There simply isn't any way for you to prove that. Intellectually you have to be willing to concede that. I'm not asking you to concede that the election was rigged, only that you can't know whether or not it was, just as I can't. Trust me, we all know that you believe it was not, and you are not wrong to believe that.


Originally Posted By: sini
Again:

(P) There was election fraud
(P) Obama won election
---------------
(C) Election was stolen

Is this the argument we are discussing?


To restate my argument:

(P) Some people believe elections were stolen
(P) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional


No I don't think we're discussing the first argument there, that simply makes no sense. It's based on a faulty premise for which there is no evidence, and the conclusion does not follow from the two premises even if they were both true.

In your argument, P2 again uses the argument from silence. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. Your conclusion then in this case is based on a faulty premise. This argument could be made in the same way, but would also be wrong:

(P) Some people believe the election was stolen
(P) There is evidence of the ability to commit voter fraud
-----------------------------
(C) The election was stolen

The overriding point here is not that you are wrong, but that you can't be right in this argument. You will (reasonable assumption here) never be able to prove that the election was stolen or not stolen. We can go on like this forever, because this argument is pointless and not winnable.