-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I thought you might have appreciated the cleverness of my reply.
Bloodbath
Posts
Total:
68
-->
@Greyparrot
this ad a lieI agree. See what I did there? It's literally your own words....
Hmmm... So it sounds to me like you're saying you cannot properly assess what someone is saying without understanding the full circumstances in which they said it (aka context). Is that right?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So very predictable. Liars gona lie.How is anything in this ad a lie? It's literally his own words.Suddenly the context-magic stops. Amazing.
lol
It's not me that all of a sudden made the magic stop.
You've been ignoring context for weeks now as you've scrambled to make your arguments sound legitimate, but suddenly when it came to the Biden ad against Trump, the very notion you've been ignoring became the central issue you had with it. So yeah I agree... Amazing.
Unless you care to explain what part I am missing that explains how Biden is a liar here...
-->
@Double_R
You've been ignoring context for weeks now
Sure pal.
Explain the context where you say "Donald Trump did not win 2016 election" and that isn't "denying election results"
Am I going to ignore your answer? Yes, because there is no context that changes that. The sentence is complete and specific. There are no alternate interpretations or pronouns to identify. There is no secondary reference or conditionals.
You're just nuts, and you think you can just say "context" and have sentences mean things they do not.
Context! therefore "peacefully" doesn't mean peacefully.
Context! therefore explicit election denial doesn't mean election denial.
Unless you care to explain what part I am missing that explains how Biden is a liar here...
Biden is no longer mentally competent to be a proven liar. Whoever made that ad is lying though. The "very fine people" hoax has been debunked for years repeatedly. The whole conference is recorded and available and it does not bear belief that you don't already know that he was NOT talking about white supremacists or neo nazis.
So when somebody puts video of white supremacists and neo nazis on screen while they play the clip, that's lying.
If the right-tribe did that to Biden... oh wait Q-Anon has. They put Biden talking about liking kids sitting on his lap to a background of pedophilia stats and "warning signs".
Now imagine that the Trump campaign ran that as a global campaign.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Explain the context where you say ["If I don't win this election it's going to be a blood bath"] and that isn't ["an endorsement of political violence"].Am I going to ignore your answer? Yes, because there is no context that changes that. The sentence is complete and specific. There are no alternate interpretations or pronouns to identify. There is no secondary reference or conditionals.
Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.
You're just nuts, and you think you can just say "context" and have sentences mean things they do not.
No, I think I can start off by pointing out that context matters, and then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.
The fact that you would go on to ignore everything I wrote, as you just admitted you do, is not my issue. Anyone who cares about reality and basic logic who is also willing to sit here on this site debating it... would bother to read it and point out the errors, which would be easy to do if I were so nuts.
Context! therefore "peacefully" doesn't mean peacefully.
That's a nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them.
Context doesn't change the meaning of words, so this will always be a genuine expression of concern for the safety of your family. It's not a threat, and no one who has ever uttered it meant it as such. Says ADreamOfLiberty.
-->
@Double_R
Explain the context where you say ["If I don't win this election it's going to be a blood bath"] and that isn't ["an endorsement of political violence"].Am I going to ignore your answer? Yes, because there is no context that changes that. The sentence is complete and specific. There are no alternate interpretations or pronouns to identify. There is no secondary reference or conditionals.Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.
No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one.
then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.
Excuses, you explained their excuses for making the statement. Excuses don't change the meaning. That's not context.
If I said Biden didn't win the election because of X I still said Biden didn't win the election. Democrats still denied (purported) election results. You will never be able to change that.
would bother to read it and point out the errors
The error is one of relevance. That's why I can ignore it.
Context doesn't change the meaning of words
It doesn't change them to whatever your political biases might find convenient.
That's a nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them.
Is coded language. If nobody ever watched mafia films/TV they would have no idea what it meant.
"peacefully protest" is not code for anything but "peacefully protest" in any context. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE OTHERWISE.
P.S. nice job on ignoring the fine people hoax in the video. Never let them see you bleed right?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one
According to google, if you type "bloodbath definition"...there is only one definition now.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one.
Ah, so when Trump uses a word it can mean anything but when a democrat uses a word it's only limited to one usage. Wow, incredible how convenient that is for you.
Because no one has ever used the word "win" in anything other than a completely technical sense.
Is this really the hill you are going to die on?
then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.Excuses, you explained their excuses for making the statement. Excuses don't change the meaning.
Yeah, that's what the word excuse means. So are you going to argue your point or just define yourself as being right?
If I said Biden didn't win the election because of X I still said Biden didn't win the election. Democrats still denied (purported) election results. You will never be able to change that.
No prominent democrat has ever claimed the vote tallies reported by the states in 2016 or 2020 were not accurate or driven by fraud. That is strictly a republican thing. You will never be able to change that.
All these little word games you're playing, like pretending words can have multiple usages when Trump utters them, but only one usage when it comes out of the mouth of a democrat is not going to make your point any more reasonable.
would bother to read it and point out the errorsThe error is one of relevance. That's why I can ignore it.
Whether a conclusion follows from the premises (that's what we call logic) will always be relevant to an argument. If it doesn't, you can always point out why, which isn't what ignoring it means.
That's a nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them.Is coded language. If nobody ever watched mafia films/TV they would have no idea what it meant."peacefully protest" is not code for anything but "peacefully protest" in any context. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE OTHERWISE.
Anyone with a shred of common sense can figure out what it means when someone whom you owe money to and is capable of such brutality utters these words to you. The fact that you think coded language only comes from Mafia movies shows the depths you have to sink yourself to in order to hold your position. At what point do you finally just admit you are wrong?
And I have to repeat my earlier observation, it never ceases to amaze me how the same people who excuse every stupid, vile, and incoherent thing Trump says on the basis that he "speaks in metaphors" are also the same people who (when it's convenient) pretend there only exists literal and explicit language - that every word a person speaks can only be interpreted by it's dictionary definition. The hypocrisy and double standards here are beyond flagrant. These are the logic pretzels one must contort themselves into to defend Trumpism.
P.S. nice job on ignoring the fine people hoax in the video.
I wasn't ignoring it, it's the same thing we're already talking about. In fact, that's an even better example for me because you cannot possibly defend Trump's "both sides" comment without accepting every single argument I've made here which you are actively rejecting.
-->
@Double_R
Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one.Ah, so when Trump uses a word it can mean anything but when a democrat uses a word it's only limited to one usage.
No, when the word in the context of the sentence or a paragraph has only one meaning it has only one meaning.
Is this really the hill you are going to die on?
I'm not dying.
then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.Excuses, you explained their excuses for making the statement. Excuses don't change the meaning.Yeah, that's what the word excuse means. So are you going to argue your point or just define yourself as being right?
Excuse means "change the meaning"? No it doesn't
You are late. Then there are your excuses for being late. No excuse will change the fact that you were late. They may mean you're faultless.
You deny elections. Then there are excuses for denying elections. No excuse will change the fact that you denied elections. They may mean you're right to do so.
Democrats deny elections without a theory of fraud. Right-tribers have many theories of fraud. The difference in excuses is that republicans have an excuse, there is no difference when comparing the fact of election denial itself.
If I said Biden didn't win the election because of X I still said Biden didn't win the election. Democrats still denied (purported) election results. You will never be able to change that.No prominent democrat has ever claimed the vote tallies reported by the states in 2016 or 2020 were not accurate or driven by fraud.
Then they have poor excuses. (They have used the word 'fraud' in other elections)
would bother to read it and point out the errorsThe error is one of relevance. That's why I can ignore it.Whether a conclusion follows from the premises (that's what we call logic) will always be relevant to an argument. If it doesn't, you can always point out why, which isn't what ignoring it means.
The conclusion is irrelevant as it fails to contradict much less override the facts in evidence.
Since the conclusion is irrelevant, the argument is irrelevant. Much like "Context exists, therefore Trump means whatever I say he means."
P.S. nice job on ignoring the fine people hoax in the video.I wasn't ignoring it, it's the same thing we're already talking about. In fact, that's an even better example for me because you cannot possibly defend Trump's words without accepting every single argument I've made here which you are actively rejecting.
Shouting "context" is not an argument. Trump says "people" and "sides", it depends on what "sides" he was referring to. There is no doubt as to what "the 2016 election" is.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ah, so when Trump uses a word it can mean anything but when a democrat uses a word it's only limited to one usage.No, when the word in the context of the sentence or a paragraph has only one meaning it has only one meaning.
Question begging fallacy at its finest.
Whether the words in question have only one meaning/usage is the very thing being contested, you don't get to pretend you're right merely because you declared yourself so.
You deny elections. Then there are excuses for denying elections. No excuse will change the fact that you denied elections.
I was about to continue with the Socratic method and ask whether you really believe there is only one way to deny an election until realizing what an utter waste of time that would be. The answer is obvious; of course there is, just like there are multiple ways to deny any victory of any kind.
We can generally group these into two categories, denying the technical result, and denying the legitimacy of the result. A sprinter who crosses the finish line first technically won the race, but if they did it while using a PED and didn't get caught then their victory would reasonably be considered illegitimate.
You continue to pretend as if these are the same thing when any person with an IQ above room temperature can easily tell the difference. The fact that I have to repeatedly explain this to you demonstrates not only how wrong you are, but how low you have to sink yourself to to keep defending this nonsense.
The democrats are not denying Trump's victory in a technical sense. That would require disputing basic facts, which are objective. They are denying the legitimacy of his victory, that is about values and what the underlying ideas behind the contest itself are about which is all inherently subjective.
Objective and subjective are not the same thing.
Are you ever going to provide a thoughtful response to this, or just keep pretending this doesn't matter?
Democrats deny elections without a theory of fraud. Right-tribers have many theories of fraud. The difference in excuses is that republicans have an excuse
Pretending the other person's argument doesn't exist is not a refutation.
Whether a conclusion follows from the premises (that's what we call logic) will always be relevant to an argument. If it doesn't, you can always point out why, which isn't what ignoring it means.The conclusion is irrelevant as it fails to contradict much less override the facts in evidence.
Declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. You actually have to argue your points to be taken seriously.
Shouting "context" is not an argument.
I didn't just shout context, I wrote multiple paragraphs explaining how the context added up to my interpretation as well as the interpretation of the very people he was talking to. I have also pointed this out to you multiple times since including in my last post, each time you just ignore or and pretend what I said doesn't exist.
You're a brazen liar. I continue with this conversation for no reasons other than the exercise and because each time you do this it only cements further and further how wrong you are and preserves the record for anyone who may be reading this the brain disease that is MAGA cultism.
-->
@Double_R
Whether the words in question have only one meaning/usage is the very thing being contested
Good luck with that.
I was about to continue with the Socratic method and ask whether you really believe there is only one way to deny an election until realizing what an utter waste of time that would be.
Impressive, you're actually learning. Indeed it would be a waste of time.
It's one of those "if you have a bucket with 3 liters of water and a bucket with 5 liters of milk how many buckets do you have?" questions.
"there is only one way to deny an election"
If there were 50,000 ways to deny an election and democrats only used two, have democrats denied an election?
Are you ever going to provide a thoughtful response to this
I think I'm cutting to the heart of the matter quite efficiently.
Declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. You actually have to argue your points to be taken seriously.
Well let's see what you do I'll just copy it:
The moon has been struck by many meteors over its history, craters come from meteor strikes, therefore Joe Biden is a pedophile.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whether the words in question have only one meaning/usage is the very thing being contestedGood luck with that.
I don't need luck, it's basic human communication aka common sense. Everyone knows this, your denial of the fact that words can be and are used in many different ways (says everyone who uses language) is just another indicator of how MAGA cultism rots people's brains.
If there were 50,000 ways to deny an election and democrats only used two, have democrats denied an election?
If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.
Also, take note of how I literally just explained the difference to you in what these differences are and why they matter and notice how you once again ignored every point I made entirely. You're not a serious person.
Are you ever going to provide a thoughtful response to thisI think I'm cutting to the heart of the matter quite efficiently.
I know you do, that's the problem.
The moon has been struck by many meteors over its history, craters come from meteor strikes, therefore Joe Biden is a pedophile.
The meteors that struck the moon did so in most cases before Joe Biden was ever born, therefore there is no possible way his sexual preferences could have possibly impacted them.
Not that hard.
-->
@Double_R
If there were 50,000 ways to deny an election and democrats only used two, have democrats denied an election?If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.
Then why use the same phrase?
The moon has been struck by many meteors over its history, craters come from meteor strikes, therefore Joe Biden is a pedophile.The meteors that struck the moon did so in most cases before Joe Biden was ever born, therefore there is no possible way his sexual preferences could have possibly impacted them.
Who said Joe Biden's sexuality impacted impact craters?
I said because the moon has been struck by meteors and meteors cause craters Joe Biden is a pedophile.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.Then why use the same phrase?
2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.
Actually don't, we already know why; because the best way to make a ridiculous argument in politics is to make it sound like something the other side already did or said, that way you can take it to a new low while pretending it's all the same.
Example:
Democrats in 2016: POTUS didn't win legitimately
Republicans in 2020: POTUS didn't win
Both sides said he didn't win, so they're both the same. English be damned.
Who said Joe Biden's sexuality impacted impact craters?I said because the moon has been struck by meteors and meteors cause craters Joe Biden is a pedophile.
If moon craters made people pedophiles then everyone would be pedophiles, but most people are not, therefore craters do not make people pedophiles.
You also failed to provide a casual mechanism, which is necessary to make this statement in the first place. Without that it's a violation of the null hypothesis.
You also ignore Occam's razor, which clearly leads us to conclude Joe Biden's alleged pedophilia would be a product of natural human impulses rather than the effect of a celestial object.
And then there's the burden of proof, which you've completely ignored.
You also ignore the concept of the default position that nothing is reasonably accepted to exist until it is demonstrated to exist, like for example mystical pedophilia causing rays from the moon's craters.
Ate we done with this stupid example?
-->
@Double_R
If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.Then why use the same phrase?2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.
So you admit that in your mind the definition changed. Enough said.
Democrats in 2016: Trump didn't win legitimatelyRepublicans in 2020: Trump didn't winBoth sides said he didn't win, so they're both the same. English be damned.
....and you expect people to think you're the serious one...
Question: does "Trump didn't win legitimately" = "Trump lost"?
Who said Joe Biden's sexuality impacted impact craters?I said because the moon has been struck by meteors and meteors cause craters Joe Biden is a pedophile.If moon craters made people pedophiles then everyone would be pedophiles, but most people are not, therefore craters do not make people pedophiles.
Trying to fill in a missing premise I see. I did not use the premise "Moon craters make people pedophiles".
Nor did you use the premise "If someone denies an election for some reasons they aren't denying an election" as that would be a self-contradicting premise.
You also failed to provide a casual mechanism
No causality was implied.
which is necessary to make this statement in the first place.
Why?
Without that it's a violation of the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis refers to the ever present alternative to a theorized relationship between phenomenon. It's not something that is violated.
You also ignore Occam's razor, which clearly leads us to conclude Joe Biden's alleged pedophilia would be a product of natural human impulses rather than the effect of a celestial object.
rofl, oh this is interesting. You do like to wield tools you don't understand. You believe having your own theory of the cause of Biden's pedophilia defeats that argument (which in no way claimed a cause)? Why?
And then there's the burden of proof, which you've completely ignored.
This, this is enlightening. I now see that I've been dealing with someone who just throws out phrases he doesn't understand.
You also ignore the concept of the default position that nothing is reasonably accepted to exist until it is demonstrated to exist, like for example mystical pedophilia causing rays from the moon's craters.
When evaluating an argument validity and soundness are two different qualities.
Did the argument posit the existence of pedophilia causing rays from the moon's craters? Was that one of the premises? I didn't see it.
Ate we done with this stupid example?
I'm not, I'm learning a lot about what you don't know. It's probably going to save me a lot of wasted time to know all those things I assumed you understood.
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought you might have appreciated the cleverness of my reply.
Yes, very succinct.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.So you admit that in your mind the definition changed.
No, the context changed. That's literally what context is - what someone is talking about.
Question: does "Trump didn't win legitimately" = "Trump lost"?
It depends on what you're talking about.
Legitimacy is about winning in "the spirit" of the contest, which reasonable people can see differently.
We can reasonably disagree on whether Trump's victory was legitimate given that he received welcomed help from a foreign advasary. We can reasonably disagree on whether his victory was legitimate given that he lost the popular vote. We can reasonably disagree because these are matters of subjective opinion.
What you are talking about is not. The the vote tallies and whether those votes were cast by legal voters is not subject to your or anyone else's opinion. Here we're talking about facts. We're talking about reality. That's not the same thing. Why is this so difficult for you? Are you even still reading this or did you just see a bunch of words and it overloaded your circuits?
Subjective opinion =/= objective fact. Do you understand that?
Nor did you use the premise "If someone denies an election for some reasons they aren't denying an election" as that would be a self-contradicting premise.
It's actually not necessarily.
The first law of logic is the law of identity which states something must be what it is and cannot be what it is not. Yet when you hear any philosopher explain it they will ad the caveat "at the same time in the same sense".
Why do they have to add this? Because people often talk about things using the same words but talking about them in different senses. Because that's how human language works. Example: "I'm old, but I'm not old". Translation: "I'm old in the sense that I'm older than everyone else here, but I'm not old in the sense that I am an elderly person"
Using words in different senses does not = changing definitions.
So the premise can easily be translated into "If someone denies [the legitimacy of] an election for some reasons they aren't denying [the technical result of] an election [as decided by the electoral college vote].
Why this melts your brain to the point of an endless feedback loop is beyond me. It is not complicated. At all.
You also failed to provide a casual mechanismNo causality was implied.
That's literally where the word "be-cause" comes from, which you even put in bold.
I'm done with this stupid example, no serious person would still be trying this hard and failing this badly to show that declaring an argument to be irrelevant is not an end-all-be-all rebuttal. Try that in an actual debate and see what happens.
-->
@Double_R
I'm done with this stupid example, no serious person would still be trying this hard and failing this badly to show that declaring an argument to be irrelevant is not an end-all-be-all rebuttal. Try that in an actual debate and see what happens.
You realize he was just using your style....
-->
@Double_R
2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.So you admit that in your mind the definition changed.No, the context changed.
Election denial no longer became election denial. Or rather election denial became bad because the people denying elections actually had theories for why the election should be denied/was illegitimate (which are synonymous concepts).
Your double standard is rejected. Your denial continues to fail, and continues to expose you as a hack.
A reminder to the reader:
[Double_R] Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter[Double_R] Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
In Double_R's mind it's not really election denial because he doesn't have a problem with the excuses of Kamela Harris and Jimmy Carter. This is most similar to the no true scottsman fallacy. Linguistically it is simply a selective denial of a definition.
Election denial means denying the officially reported results ( winners and losers) of an election. That is what democrats did. The end.
So the premise can easily be translated into "If someone denies [the legitimacy of] an election for some reasons they aren't denying [the technical result of] an election [as decided by the electoral college vote].Why this melts your brain to the point of an endless feedback loop is beyond me. It is not complicated. At all.
Not complicated at all. Simply wrong. A simple wrong.
Words can have multiple definitions, but concepts don't. Concept -> word is not subject to denial due to alternate definitions.
The democratic rejection of the results of a process they call an election is a concept, and that concept is (one of) the definitions of "election denial". There are many other phrases which link to the concept, and that does not change a thing.
See: synonyms
I'm done with this stupid example, no serious person would still be trying this hard and failing this badly to show that declaring an argument to be irrelevant is not an end-all-be-all rebuttal. Try that in an actual debate and see what happens.
So you admit you haven't actually been debating...
It was an irrelevant premise. The premise being that democrats had a different justification (excuse/reason) for denying the election. It simply has no connecting premise to the boolean of whether they denied an election.
Yes pointing out that there is no connecting premise (and thus no argument) is the only correct response. You proved you did not understand that with this example. One premise or two premises with no categorical overlap don't allow any inference. The end.
This is far more basic and fundamental than everything you threw at the wall (Occam's razor, null hypothesis, purported causality, etc...)
This is where logic begins, not at your abused and confused notion of an epistemological guideline.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Election denial means denying the officially reported results ( winners and losers) of an election. That is what democrats did. The end.
That certainly is where it ends... In your mind, because you are incapable of telling different things apart from each other.
Calling what the democrats did "election denial" doesn't mean what they did actually meets your definition of "election denial". This is no different than when theists define atheism as a positive belief that no gods exist, and then attack the atheists for their unsubstantiated belief system.
You don't get to define someone else's position, and you don't get to just bully your definition of someone else's words into the record. In the real world, where facts and logic matter, you have to make real arguments based on reality. Let me know when you'd like to engage in that excise.
The democratic rejection of the results of a process they call an election is a concept
Yes, and I've been trying to explain that concept to you for weeks now. Why your brain is hardwired to shut down and not allow any new data in every time is beyond me.
To explain it I've given you a baseball analogy, I gave you a sprinter analogy, and I explained it within the actual topic at least three different ways now. Each time you completely ignore everything I've said pretending that your pre-prepared sheild excuse of just calling it Irrelevant means you get to pretend it doesn't exist.
In my last post I broke down what each side was saying and explained how one was a matter of subjective opinion while the other was a matter of objective fact. Did you have any response to that? No of course you didn't. I talked about how the exact same phrase using the same words defined in the same way could still result in different meanings based on the context in which they are used. Did you have any response to that? No of course you didn't. Why respond when you can just say the magic word "irrelevant".
Watching you time and time again ignore every point that threatens your cherished beliefs is amusing and informing. There is no reasoning with a person who has decided reason is irrelevant. It is no wonder you believe the ridiculous things you do.
Yes pointing out that there is no connecting premise (and thus no argument) is the only correct response. You proved you did not understand that with this example.
Right, you really owned me when you explained that the word "because" does not denote a casual connection.
It's not me who doesn't understand.
-->
@Greyparrot
You realize he was just using your style....
No, what he was doing is trying to argue the that merely proclaiming my argument irrelevant means he gets to ignore the multiple paragraphs I wrote explaining how it's very relevant.
And he did so by presenting such a ridiculous case that he had to resort to arguing that "because" doesn't imply a casual relationship.
He would argue the earth is flat just to avoid having to accept anything I have to say. Hell, I should just start arguing that Biden is terrible and Trump is the greatest president ever, if I did that I'd probably succeed in getting him to vote for Biden.
-->
@Double_R
Calling what the democrats did "election denial" doesn't mean what they did actually meets your definition of "election denial".
It meets the definition of election denial. The one that is determined by looking at the definitions of 'election' and 'denial', and then looking at how people used the phrase.
You don't get to define someone else's position
You don't get to control language. Consequently you don't get to redefine terms and words in order to protect your double standards.
Why respond when you can just say the magic word "irrelevant".
I can mix it up, "occams razor" (stands back to see if you disappear in a poof of purple smoke)
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You don't get to control language.
No, the people who use words get to control their own word usage, because that's what language is. I am not the one pretending I control what other people are saying, that's what you've been doing since this thread began.
Here is your tired Jimmy Carter example. Let's look at what he actually said:
"I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf"
So you tell me... What was Jimmy Carter actually saying here? Was he alleging that election was fraudulent? Was he alleging that Russia controlled the electoral college? Go ahead, tell us. Break it down.
Remember that Trump never won the popular vote. I think he will lose by 20 million votes this year.
-->
@Double_R
So you tell me... What was Jimmy Carter actually saying here?
That Trump lost the election.
Was he alleging that election was fraudulent?
He was alleging they the result was inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...
Fraudulent is intentionally inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...
Could it happen by accident? No.
Therefore: Yes.
Was he alleging that Russia controlled the electoral college?
Ask him. What is not in doubt is that he is alleging the results were inaccurate.
Go ahead, tell us. Break it down.
Jimmy Carter denied the 2016 election. That makes him an election denier. His reasons are irrelevant to that fact. No reason changes it. The mantra-like excuse at the time, which can NEVER render election denial anything other than election denial, was the mind numbing endless repetition of "interference".
How many points do you get for claiming a fraudulent result while never using the word "fraud"? -50
Hec CNN and retired deep state bureaucrats do more election interference than Russia in a single day.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Was he alleging that election was fraudulent?He was alleging they the result was inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...
This isn't an answer, the debate over the past week has been almost entirely about what each of these words mean.
So again, what was he alleging?
Inaccurate and wrong generally means the vote tallies did not match to what the people voted. Is that what you're claiming he was taking about?
Illegitimate has many different uses here, including the idea that he won because he got help from Russia in the form of a disinformation campaign against Clinton.
This isn't complicated, this isn't a gotcha, it's really simple... What was he alleging happened?
-->
@Double_R
Was he alleging that election was fraudulent?He was alleging they the result was inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...This isn't an answer, the debate over the past week has been almost entirely about what each of these words mean.So again, what was he alleging?
He was alleging they the result was false, not to be respected, invalid, etc... etc...
Inaccurate and wrong generally means the vote tallies did not match to what the people voted. Is that what you're claiming he was taking about?
It is.
Illegitimate has many different uses here
Under the premise of democracy it has only one: inaccurate
including the idea that he won because he got help from Russia in the form of a disinformation campaign against Clinton.
If the public being exposed to information one side thinks is misleading makes an election illegitimate then there has never been a legitimate election. You people blather on about 'peaceful transfer of power', that means accepting that majorities sometimes make mistakes and that doesn't mean their decision is illegitimate.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the public being exposed to information one side thinks is misleading makes an election illegitimate then there has never been a legitimate election.
I generally agree with you here, it is a stretch to me to say a president is illegitimate because people may have been influenced by a campaign of a foreign advasary to get that individual elected, but it isn't an entirely unreasonable position. Until Trump rotted the brains of half the country, we all used to agree that welcoming the help of a foreign advasary in an election was out of the question. I think it was Al Gore who was sent a brief case with oppo research on Bush and immediately turned it over to the FBI. It was an accepted part of the rules for how campaigns were supposed to operate, so when Trump refused to take the same approach in 2016 it gave a lot of people room to argue his election was illegitimate.
Inaccurate and wrong generally means the vote tallies did not match to what the people voted. Is that what you're claiming he was taking about?It is.
Ok, so your claim is that Jimmy Carter was alleging the vote tallies were not accurate, even though he explained in detail that he was talking about the fact that the Russians interfered to help Trump.
Do you have any basis for that belief other than the fact that he used the term "didn't win"? Is your position seriously that if someone uses those two words, then they are only talking about the ballot counts and nothing else?
-->
@Double_R
Do you have any basis for that belief other than the fact that he used the term "didn't win"?
I don't need any. Even if he explicitly denied it two seconds later that would not matter.
If Bob accuses Amy of murder and then follows it up by saying "and by that I mean she used all the penutbutter, not that she killed a human being" that's just Bob contradicting himself. If Jimmy Carter (or any of the others) went on to explain that they didn't mean there was any fraud that would just be them contradicting themselves.
There is no room for alternate interpretations (other than referring to the popular vote vs electoral college which would not make anything illegitimate because the electoral college is law).
Contrast this with "There were very fine people on either side". "side" is a reference word. It is not fully defined within the sentence. Context determines what the sides are, so when Trump says a few seconds later which side he is not talking about that is not a contradiction.
Is your position seriously that if someone uses those two words, then they are only talking about the ballot counts and nothing else?
Specifically the rules of the contest, which in a US federal election include a state level democracy transferring through the authority of state legislatures into electors who are counted by congress. This is locked in by the term "election denial". The "election" is the democratic institution created by the state and federal constitutions. If you disclaim those rules then you're still an election denier.
Contrast this to when I say I haven't lost a debate on a particular subject despite having the majority against me many times. I am asserting that democracy is not the rule for rational epistemology and that rational epistemology is the rules that decide the result of a debate.
I can't simultaneously claim democracy (or a federalized democracy) is the principle and then say the winner depends upon more than the accurate vote count. The only way to deny a claim of majority support is to:
A: Deny democracy is supreme
B: Deny the accuracy of the claim