Originally Posted By: Brutal
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.


No I don't. The article clearly states 49% of GOP responded in a way that is understood they are CERTAIN elections were stolen, as such I am more then justified calling them delusional. Anyone who claims CERTAINTY in unsubstantiated conclusion is delusional.

Unlike Derid, that at a later time restated his position to mere probability, I don't have to guess what 49% meant - linked article is very clear about it and nobody so far questioned what it said.

Quote:
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?


I don't know, he is certainly not getting what I am saying. I suppose to avoid hypothetical "remember that thread where you were wrong" event at some point in the future.

Quote:
Either admit your mistake and move on to better arguments, or stop responding at all.


Any admission would be 100% insincere because I strongly believe I am not in the wrong here. I read what you said, I have read what Derid said, and in light of it I still stick to my original position.

They are delusional. End of story.

Quote:
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?


I will give you hint. About the only valid way you can attack my position is by accusing me of status quo stonewalling. Anything else is skeptical regress of the worst kind, where you start to question established institutions of this country, accepted, GOP-endorsed and official election results, and definition of election fraud.

Last edited by sini; 12/16/12 01:42 PM.
[Linked Image]