Originally Posted By: Derid
Or are you going to continue with yet more insults and word games?


Answer:


Originally Posted By: sini
My experiment with using formalized logic was a failure. You simply don't understand it, and points I was trying to make went over your head. At least after your last two posts I can see that you have read and considered what I said, so I was misunderstood, not ignored.


Well, at least he didn't make you wait in suspsense.


Originally Posted By: sini
In plain language - my objections to your argument isn't that elections weren't, couldn't, probability next to zero of tampering, but that you could not draw conclusions you did with a mere possibility of tampering. If you said something like; "Given election tampering occurred and it was of sufficient magnitude, then elections were stolen" I would not have objected to it. Yes it is semantics, but it is important to get semantics right because of how easy it is to drop MIGHT for CERTAIN and go on pretending nothing changed. The very article I linked is a result of this kind of faulty generalizing. I have hard time believing that 49% of any group, even GOP voters, would believe something so off-the-wall like elections were CERTAINLY stolen, but this is how they responded to survey question.


If he can't draw conclusions from a "mere possibility of tampering" then you can't draw conclusions from a possibility of non-tampering. See the problem? In this case though, you have drawn a conclusion: That the 49% of respondents in that article are demonstrably wrong and delusional.

Based on this paragraph it seems clear to me that you understand that this argument has become entirely semantic, so at this point you are simply arguing in the hope that you can catch your opponent in a word trap and turn his argument around again. Why even bother? Either admit your mistake and move on to better arguments, or stop responding at all. This is long past pointless, and I don't think I'll bother clicking on this thread anymore.