Originally Posted By: sini
I don't understand why you insisting on this? Find, deductive logic is not your thing. I got it.

I am disappointed I couldn't get through to you, perhaps I wasn't explaining on the level you could understand, but honestly I couldn't think of a way to simplify this any further.

I think fundamental problem is that you just decided to ignore everything I said in this thread.

Too bad. I used to hold you in high regard.


I glossed over this beauty the first time around, the longer post you made quickly caught my attention. Again, pretty amusing.

For what its worth, I give you credit for trying. To me, this thread has felt like someone several ranks below me trying to play Mirror Go in hopes of causing confusion. The problem with a Mirror strategy, is it actually just leaves you a step behind and completely reactive. Its not a 1:1 comparison by any means, but there are plenty of parallels.

Anyhow, where you were going with the lottery concept was apparent to everyone for a long time now. Brutal touched on it when he said "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." and I said it again when I said "You are never going to objectively quantify the probability , so why bother trying. " (antecedent for quantifying probability was probability of election tampering, just in case you were getting inclined to ignore context and run off on another wild tangent)

While we can determine the minimum threshold for what amount of tampering would be required to alter an election - what we cannot objectively determine is the probability of said tampering occurring.

We can establish a reasonable premise based on a collection of studies, audits, and analysis by activists and security pros on the left and right that it is possible to tamper with an election. We can establish by looking at the money involved, and the demonstrable lack of character of a great body of those who stand to gain or lose in an election that there is sufficient motive.

But still, going forward with it still would incur a degree of risk and possible consequences should one ever get caught red handed. Reading analysis and studies about the issue is also not first hand knowledge, and often we are not in a position to ensure that all of our information is accurate and thorough.

What we are left with, is entirely subjective probabilities based on how we choose to weight and infer certain heuristics.

You choose to weight them in such a way, that doubting your conclusion that the subjective probability is almost 0 becomes a fallacy. Anyone who "cant see that" becomes an object of scorn in your eyes. To me this is facile and more a representation of extreme dogma and unbecoming and unjustified arrogance. You do not bother to consider what you do and dont actually know, or whether you truly even have enough accurate data to come to a strong conclusion.

You dont have an actual case - you just strongly believe, and lash out at those who do not share your belief.

---
edit: ok I couldnt resist

Quote:
I don't understand why you insisting on this? Find, deductive logic is not your thing. I got it.


Says the guy who attacked a straw man by making a false analogy with a comparison derived from abusing reductium ad absurdum that was created in the first place with an argument from personal incredulity.

Tee. Hee. Teehehehe. Ok, this one is probably going to leave me chuckling for a while.

Last edited by Derid; 12/16/12 05:43 AM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)