The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Deligitimization of Obama

Webster: Delusion



"Just because they believe something that probably isn't true does not make them delusional."

Way I understand Webster definition of delusion, yes it does. Plus you are arguing semantics here, would it work better for you if I called them simply 'Wrong'? If you read my numerous posts on this subject, you will find that I did specify exactly what I meant.

Here is what I said:



"I could just as easily call you delusional for believing beyond any doubt that the election was not stolen."

You can't - first I never stated "believing beyond any doubt", if you present irrefutable evidence I will change my mind. Second, and more important distinction, is that I do not hold unjustified belief.

Here is direct quote stating my justification for my opinion:


"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"

Plus it is an invalid argument, so we don't even need to demonstrate that premises are fallacious. This is why I keep asking, and yet to get an answer that I can understand, but this is how I see Derid's position.

Derid position is one of the following:

a. He does not contradict my original position.

or

b. He has an invalid argument with a false premises.

I don't see "c." - do you?




My argument is:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional

It is valid.
P1 false P2 true results in C false
P1 true P2 false results in C false
P1 false P2 false results in C false
It is sound.

P1 true - as per article I linked
P2 is true, you are technically correct that by itself it can be considered an argument from silence, but supressed premise here "that they presented". At no point in this discussion any evidence of voter fraud was presented. Additionally, as I disucessed with Derid, such fraud must be very substantial (5 states!) in order to have an effect.

In light of your comments:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of substantial fraud that they preseted
----------
(C) There people are delusional

Sinij wrote: "My argument is:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional "

- There is considerable body of evidence that fraud is possible to pull off. Enough to induce a plausible doubt in the validity of the result.


Sinij wrote: "Additionally, as I disucessed with Derid, such fraud must be very substantial (5 states!) in order to have an effect."

- One voting machine, 1000 voting machines, one tallying server 5 tallying servers - if the same vulnerabilities are present combined with the same lack of security protocol - what difference would it make?

Analogy: The Oracle JVM currently has a large security flaw. If you have a tool to exploit that flaw, is using that tool on 5 different machines that have a JVM installed particularly more difficult than using it on one? The inverse is actually true, when talking about systems security (and by this I include any process not just software systems) security is actually asymmetric. Given a widespread vulnerability, it actually becomes more difficult for the defender because the resources that must be expended by the defender to detect and/or intercept an attack attempt are vastly higher than the resources that must be spend by an attacker to make an attempt.

The 300k number was the smallest known spread with readily available numbers, and reflected just one hypothetical scenario. In reality the vulnerable surface area was much, much larger.

Derid, do you know if these flaws can be exploited remotely? From what I read they require local access, as such your comparison does not hold.

Additionally, do you know if they all use the same system? I was under impression that there are multiple types of machines, am I wrong?

Last but not least, I was under impression that there are still some places that do hand-counting and/or require paper trail. Is this not the case?

As applicable to "close call" sites, any of them would fall into above-mentioned categories?

Also, would you consider that possibility is not sufficient?

It is possible for me to win a lottery, but if I claim I have a winning lottery ticket before the results are announced, you can call me delusional. Would you agree?

There are many different systems, I am familiar with some of them in Ohio. The fact that there are many different systems actually adds to the security concerns, as opposed to detracting from them. A prospective attacker has years to devise tools and methods of attack while the defenders have X more scenarios and vulnerabilities to look out for during an extremely small window of time when 1000 things are occurring simultaneously.

In Ohio I can state with confidence that electronic voting is the norm, and security protocol is lax.

Not all flaws require someone to be on location. The centralized vote tallying servers can also be attacked. As can the path between the voting machines and the server. There was actual a considerable body of circumstantial evidence that this occurred in Ohio in 2004. Circumstantial evidence is not proof, but it can certainly raise valid concerns about the process.

It is worth noting that some areas, including Ohio have tighter regulation on how results are officially reported than in 2004 - including not allowing official results to be transmitted over the internet. But that does not mean there not still many issues.

Some long but worthwhile reading here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/mia-in-voting-machine-war_b_2054411.html

From your Webster's link, I think this definition should be noted as well:



Emphasis added by me. Again, there is no indisputable evidence to contradict their belief that the election was stolen. Let me restate my position here: I agree with you that the election was probably a legitimate win for Obama, but I cannot concede the possibility that it wasn't, nor do I agree with your broad labeling of those who disagree with your view as delusional (but they probably are).

The only true way to test if they are delusional would be to present them with some indisputable evidence that the result was legit and see how they respond.

The voting machines that I've been able to briefly 'take a look at' were all "offline models", which reported to a central computer(s)/system(s) in the voting location. It's the state of that central computer(s)/system(s) which would probably be the largest concern in terms of 'remote worries'. The last such system that I was allowed to glance at (on the 2008 election voting day) definitely had an Ethernet connection going out to a wall-jack at the location.

Last I heard there were ~15 different manufacturer's being utilized around the globe...not certain how many total utilized in the U.S.

Gentlemen please! I manage the teams that support the systems that develop the IBM IMS database that is the engine behind the entire ATM banking system worldwide. If you wanted to exploit something, then why waste time on elections. Go after IMS and get instantly rich.

The track record here is impeccable, so try another theory.

Because the voting machines are easier, with less security, less ways to catch a crook ( you dont have to launder stolen votes) and actually more money to be stolen than any ATM.

After all, Bernanke is basically stealing $45B from all of us and handing it directly to plutocrats and banksters each month. Thats pretty strong incentive to rig the system - and just 1 out of 10000 different incentives. ( From military contracts to homeland security contracts... and beyond. )

Sorry Jet, just because your preconceptions do not agree with the possibility - you cannot just dismiss it out of hand.

I actually agree with Derid that it would be by far easier to compromise voting machines because there isn't a standard or dedicated secure network reserved just for voting like with banking. PCI is one case where self-regulation works, well as far as security of banking transactions, hacking is extremely rare.

With that said, it doesn't mean that elections are ever hacked or banking is never hacked.