" where you start to question established institutions of this country "

Holy cow, I think you are onto something. At least if we are talking about competency and security protocols thereof.

"Any admission would be 100% insincere because I strongly believe I am not in the wrong here."

Well at least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

"I don't know, he is certainly not getting what I am saying."

Here, your intellectual dishonesty shows itself again. Like I said, I *get* what you are saying. You are simply wrong. Mr Ad Hoc Sinij

" 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."

I never restated my position. My position is and has always been that there is a possibility that the election was 100% legit and there is a possibility that the election was tampered, and noone who holds either opinion is delusional for holding that view. Remember, my objection was to your justification for throwing yet more bile at people. I never have taken a position stating that the election was in fact stolen, or even that the evidence suggests the chances of it being stolen are higher than the chances it was a legit outcome.



Moreover, I assert that you were wrong to call them delusional because what they believe when they believe the election was stolen via tampering - is simply that they weight the subjective probability of tampering as higher than you yourself do. They might be wrong to say it was stolen, but you also might be wrong to say it was not.

I was attacking your bile-spewing, not asserting that the election outcome was certainly altered. Your bile spewing stemmed from your own unprovable opinions regarding subjective probability. I was growing weary of seeing you fling dung everywhere based solely on your own strongly held but unjustifiable preconceptions.

"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. "

Here is the problem with this. I dont care about your formalized logic context, or vernacular thereof. Why? Because your use of semantics is too logically inconsistent. Like I said, you are shifting goalposts around and applying ad hoc interpretations to fit your own arguments.

This is key.

The argument did not begin in a formal context - and so you switched to a formal context ad hoc to attack my semantics using a new set of rules. So either I have to go back , and restate everything and go over all this crap again to fit your unilateral switching of context base - or I can just call you out on it and your ad hoc interpretations and moving goalposts. *and i said this previously, so how you possibly missed it and claim I do not "understand" is just more evidence you are acting like a fucktard*

I chose the latter, because I dont really care about the topic itself anymore - amusement from watching you squirm around in a tiny semantic box while claiming ownership of the formal logic world is pretty much the only reason I am still replying to your strings of fallacies and semantics twisting here.

I know what you are doing. I know what you are saying. Perhaps you do not know yourself, seeing the forest through the trees has never been your specialty. I suspect that its a psychological issue at this point - since switching to a new ruleset for interpretation and privately holding your own conclusions about the meaning of the article/poll wording suddenly makes you right, at least in your own head, at least as you choose to interpret the semantics... it probably logically follows to you internally that whichever way you are interpreting things is the *naturally correct* way to interpret things simply because it makes you right and your internal premise is that you are always right...

---------------------

Quote:
Lottery examples and last multiple posts were my attempts to explain concept of validity and soundness and what they mean in a formalized logic context, they were applicable to other debates only so much as to show that generalized rules, if agreed on, can be applied to all arguments of this kind. It is clear that I wasn't successful, so posting comprehensive write-up outside of any debate is now on my to-do list.

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.


Yes, and as I said previously - I understand this. What you do not seem to understand is that "Generally speaking, arguments with non-definitive conclusion are invalid. What invalid means in this circumstances? It means that you can add might to almost any conclusion and have it non-wrong." - adding "might" to make a fallacious argument "non-wrong" and the reductio ad absurdum are the same thing, or rather 2 different approaches to the same concept. That is - even if one side adds a "might" to technically be non-wrong, if the conclusion is absurd - they are still wrong.

You should be aware of this "mr formal logic"

And I addressed why your application of this was off.

You say I do not understand formal logic.... when the real case, is you do not seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective probabilities.

Either that or despite everything, you are still secretly trying to apply your initial assertion as to what my objection to your link/statement was and therefore accusing me basically of making an argument from ignorance. Which would be synonymous with an attempt to apply the non-definitive conclusion generality in this case. I gave you more credit than that though - and figured you were trying a more thorough restatement of your argument from personal incredulity.

Perhaps I overestimated you, you still believe I was stating that the election was stolen.... and given that I do not believe the election was stolen with a probability of or approaching "1" , and this has been demonstrated multiple times by two people... I did come to misunderstand what you were saying.

But that is not anything to do with my understanding of your formal logic... thats because I felt it impossible that you could still hold to the premise that I was saying the election was in fact stolen.

Last edited by Derid; 12/16/12 04:53 PM.
For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)