MIT Analysis Shows 69,000 Trump Votes Flipped to Biden in Michigan

Topic's author

#1

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 12:54PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 12:54PM

'Undeniable Pattern of Fraud': MIT Analysis Shows 69,000 Trump Votes Flipped to Biden in Michigan Amidst Contradictory Fact-Checker 'Facts', Michigan Lawsuit With Dominion Whistleblower & More

When the Antrim County Elections Commissioner in Michigan announced that a "tabulating software glitch" had counted 6,000 Trump votes for Biden amidst a flurry of other statistical anomalies in Michigan and other swing states, observers began to speculate that that the "glitch" was actually a feature of this Dominion Voting Systems software being used in 47 additional Michigan counties. Considering the fact that hidden programs used to flip the vote for a chosen candidate have not only existed for decades, but are easy to both create (only 100 lines of code) and upload onto electronic voting machines while remaining virtually undetectable, such a scenario is entirely possible. And given that another glitch in another Michigan county resulting with the very same outcome in a County Commissioner race, erroneously flipping Republican votes to the Democrat opponent causing a now-reversed election upset, it does seem mighty coincidental that multiple such 'glitches' all causing 'errors' that flip R votes to D is certainly highly suspect. And let's not forget Dominion's ties to the Clinton Foundation and a number of other establishment Democrat insiders, posing a number of obvious conflicts of interest.

14 minute youtube link - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F_g-eKY1QI

Source Link - - https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@jasonliberty/undeniable-pattern-of-fraud-mit-analysis-shows-69-000-trump-votes-flipped-to-biden-in-michigan-fact-checkers-and-more

I GUESS THE REAL QUESTION IS, DO YOU PREFER "STABILITY" OR THE TRUTH?

WE'VE HAD OVER 20 YEARS TO FIX THE EMBARASSINGLY BAD VOTING MACHINES IN THE UNITED STATES.

#2

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

11.15.2020 04:41PM

3

2

4

11.15.2020 04:41PM

-->

@3RU7AL

The ultimate source for this claim seems to be a peddler of hyperpartisan bullshit and dubious claims including delights such as vitamins prevent/cure coronavirus, and Fauci is a deepstate actor.

Topic's author

#3

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 04:48PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 04:48PM

-->

@dustryder

I appreciate the skepticism.

AND, I certainly don't want to believe any of this either.

But I can't seem to find any direct links to Alex Jones.

Citation please.

Topic's author

#4

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 04:53PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 04:53PM

-->

@dustryder

What the data shows for Oakland County is that there were actually a sizeable number of democrat voters who diverged from their party to cast a vote for Trump for president, with what looks like an average of about 7% of democrats voting for Trump, with anywhere from 2% to 20% higher than expected Trump support among precincts with 80% or more democratic voters. But then, starting from precincts with populations which are about 20% republican, a linear trend begins, where the more republican voters a precinct has, the more likely a republican candidate is to not vote for Trump. This is an impossibility; the curve is too perfect, proof that a mathematical algorithm is responsible. Because while it is certainly reasonable to suspect that a large number of republicans may choose to vote against Trump - after all, his isn't your typical republican, or even your typical politician for that matter - there is absolutely no way this would naturally occur in such a way to create such a curve. There is no plausible reason whatsoever than can explain why only those republicans in areas more heavily populated with republicans are so much more likely to vote for Biden than republicans living in areas populated with higher numbers of democrats, and not only that, but that this relationship is proportional.

#5

HistoryBuff

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,222

3

HistoryBuff

11.15.2020 05:15PM

3

11.15.2020 05:15PM

This isn't an "MIT" analysis. It is a republican hack running for senate (who did go to MIT years ago). I only found other right wing sources discussing this particular conspiracy theory, but even some of them said it was wrong. There was this video a right wing source linked to apparently disproving this guys conspiracy theory.

here is another conspiracy theory he was also tweeting about that is disproven. The guys is just pushing conspiracy theories without evidence. He is a political hack spreading lies the same as all the other ones on the internet.

Topic's author

#6

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 06:02PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 06:02PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

I do greatly appreciate the skepticism.

However, simply ad hominem attacking Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai does nothing to address the actual CLAIM.

#7

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 07:07PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 07:07PM

-->

@3RU7AL

However, simply ad hominem attacking Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai does nothing to address the actual CLAIM.

I don't think its an ad hom to point out that Dr Ayyadurai is a famous conspiracy theorists whose false reports have previously led to major retractions of claims from the Washington Post and the Smithsonian Institute (Ayyadurai absurdly claims to have invented email while attending high school in 1979, 8 years after the first documented emails were transmitted)
Ayyaduria went to MIT but that doesn't make his analysis an "MIT analysis"

MIT does publish a well respected voter analysis 6-8 months after the vote. Hell, Michigan won't even publish an official vote count until Nov 23rd. Do we really think MIT is analyzing data that hasn't been published yet?

You say you don't see any links to Alex Jones but I see no reason to give this crank's tweets any greater authority than Jones'

#8

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 07:49PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 07:49PM

-->

@3RU7AL

When the Antrim County Elections Commissioner in Michigan announced that a "tabulating software glitch" had counted 6,000 Trump votes for Biden amidst a flurry of other statistical anomalies in Michigan and other swing states, observers began to speculate that that the "glitch" was actually a feature of this Dominion Voting Systems software being used in 47 additional Michigan counties.

Let's note that Antrim County is deeply Republican. All of the elected officials being accused of fraud here are Republicans.
Here is Antrim's published vote count. Note that the county reports that 5,960 people voted for Biden.

If 6000 votes had actually switched from Trump to Biden, then the claim is that 100% of all the residents of that county voted for Trump. I've only done a little research but if any American county has ever delivered 100% for one party I can't find it, the margin of victory Republicans are claiming here is an unprecedented event in US history.

Snopes

Did a software glitch cause thousands of Republican votes to be marked for Democrats in Michigan? A human error resulted in a temporary miscalculation in Antrim County, Michigan, but this issue was quickly remedied.

One of the most prevalent voter fraud claims to emerge in the days following the election was the accusation that a computer glitch in a software program from Dominion Voting Systems had mistakenly counted thousands of votes for President Trump as votes for President Biden. This claim was based on a half-truth: a tabulation error did occur in Antrim County, but the problem was a result of a human error, and the mistake was quickly caught and corrected.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson disputed claims of deliberate election fraud in a statement:

In response to the false claims made by Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, the Michigan Department of State issues the following statements of fact:
Michigan’s elections were conducted fairly, effectively and transparently and are an accurate reflection of the will of Michigan voters.
The erroneous reporting of unofficial results from Antrim county was a result of accidental error on the part of the Antrim County Clerk. The equipment and software did not malfunction and all ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results.
Like many counties in Michigan, Antrim County uses the Dominion Voting Systems election management system and voting machines (ballot tabulators.) The county receives programming support from Election Source. Tabulators are programmed to scan hand marked, paper ballots. When machines are finished scanning the ballots, the paper ballots are retained and a totals tape showing the number of votes for each candidate in each race is printed from the machine.
In order to report unofficial results, county clerks use election management system software to combine the electronic totals from tabulators and submit a report of unofficial results. Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results.
The correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves. Even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, it would have been identified during the county canvass. Boards of County Canvassers, which are composed of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, review the printed totals tape from each tabulator during the canvass to verify the reported vote totals are correct.
The software did not cause a misallocation of votes; it was a result of user human error. Even when human error occurs, it is caught during county canvasses.
It is also completely false that the county had to or will have to hand count all their ballots. The ballots were properly counted by the tabulators. The county had to review the printed tabulator results from each precinct, not each individual ballot.
As with other unofficial results reporting errors, this was an honest mistake and did not affect any actual vote totals. Election clerks work extremely hard and do their work with integrity. They are human beings, and sometimes make mistakes. However, there are many checks and balances that ensure mistakes can be caught and corrected.

Topic's author

#9

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 08:01PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 08:01PM

-->

@oromagi

I don't think its an ad hom to point out that Dr Ayyadurai is a famous conspiracy theorist...

Any data presented with the aim to discredit the PERSON (while ignoring the substance of their specific CLAIM) is, quite technically, the very definition of an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

#10

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

11.15.2020 08:34PM

3

2

4

11.15.2020 08:34PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Just to summarise HB's disproving video, the y axis (percentage of people who diverged from a straight party vote) was calculated by subtracting the percentage of candidate voters who voted Trump, from straight party voters who voted republican. The issue with this is that you cannot randomly subtract percentages, they have to be percentages based on the same size population. Ayyadurai's graph does not account for this and displays it's results under the assumption that there are an equal number of straight party voters to candidate voters, which of course is false. The proportion can vary widely, with some precincts having around only 40% of voters voting straight party, to 80% of voters voting straight party.

Apart from this, if you made the same plot with data from Biden and democrats instead, you'd get the same linear line, which would also apparently indicate that the greater number of straight democratic voters, the less likely they are to vote Biden.

#11

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 08:42PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 08:42PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Any data presented with the aim to discredit the PERSON (while ignoring the substance of their specific CLAIM) is, quite technically, the very definition of an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

So in the parable of the boy who cried wolf you would accuse the villagers of making ad hom attacks against the boy if they ignored his persistent cries of "wolf" even after the boy was regularly proved to be trolling.

Topic's author

#12

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 08:49PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 08:49PM

-->

@oromagi

Antrim County reports 19,836 active voters as of October 2020 - - [**]

In 2016 in Antrim County, Trump got about 62% support, beating Democrat Hillary Clinton by about 4,000 votes. - - [**]

Political observers had expressed shock early Wednesday when the county transferred numbers to the state showing Biden beating Trump by about 3,000 votes. Antrim is a Republican stronghold where local GOP officials have mostly run unopposed in recent elections. - - [**]

Between 1884 and 2016, Antrim County voters have selected Republican candidates in 32 of the 34 national elections. In 2016, President Donald Trump won the county with about 8,500 votes -- nearly twice as many votes as former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received in the county. - - [**]

So, it appears that the vote count in Antrim County did not go 100% for Trump.

If Biden was ahead by 3,000 and 6,000 Biden votes were switched back to Trump, that leaves Trump with a lead of about 3,000.

This gives Trump with a much narrower lead than the tally in 2016 when Trump reportedly won by 8,500 votes.

Topic's author

#13

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 08:53PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 08:53PM

-->

@oromagi

So in the parable of the boy who cried wolf you would accuse the villagers of making ad hom attacks against the boy if they ignored his persistent cries of "wolf" even after the boy was regularly proved to be trolling.

This is a perfect example.

The entire point of that story is to highlight exactly why it's so important to evaluate EACH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM ON ITS OWN MERIT.

If you remember the parable, the villagers were eaten by the wolf at the end because they ignored valid warnings.

#14

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 09:03PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 09:03PM

-->

@dustryder

Here's a good breakdown showing that the graph is designed to slope down at a 45 degree because the Y axis subtracts the X access from its total.

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai & The Danger Of Data Charlatans

Election Fraud in Michigan? Nope: just how lines work

"The main thing to understand here is that you’d always expect the negatively sloping line that he describes as “suspicious”, by definition. Think about what he’s plotting. On the X-axis is the % of straight-ticket Republican voters. On the Y-axis is the % of split-ticket Trump voters MINUS the % of straight-ticket Republican voters.

If we were to draw the equation for that line, it’d be:

Y = -X + %split tickets that voted Trump

Where the X-axis is % straight-ticket Republican votes, and the % of split-ticket Trump votes is some random variable. I’m representing the quantity Ayyadurai plots in his video: (the % of split-ticket Trump voters MINUS the % of straight-ticket Republican voters)

If you remember your formulas for lines, you’ll know that this is by construction a negatively sloping line that will slope down 1:1, at 45-degrees. Regardless of the actual split-ticket vote data and how it’s distributed, the quantity Ayyadurai’s plotting is rigged to look like a negatively sloping line from the outset.

And if a dude is artificially constructing a negatively sloped line in front of your eyes and telling you that this “beautiful, too-perfect line!” is evidence of election fraud, you should run the other way. Because he’s trying to take advantage of your good intentions."

So, yeah, in precincts where more than 20% of Republicans voted straight ticket, fewer Republicans who split their ticket favored Trump than Biden. That's not a perfect algorithm demonstrating fraud, its just showing that the main reason that Republicans split their tickets was to vote against Trump- hardly surprising.

#15

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 09:13PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 09:13PM

-->

@3RU7AL

->@oromagi
So in the parable of the boy who cried wolf you would accuse the villagers of making ad hom attacks against the boy if they ignored his persistent cries of "wolf" even after the boy was regularly proved to be trolling.
This is a perfect example.

The entire point of that story is to highlight exactly why it's so important to evaluate EACH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM ON ITS OWN MERIT.

If you remember the parable, the villagers were eaten by the wolf at the end because they ignored valid warnings.

False, the boy's sheep are eaten by the wolf not the villagers. Let's recall Aesop's moral

this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them

Nobody has the time to check the many false claims of persistent liars. After many highly publicized claims are proved to be false, the claimant is necessarily dismissed as a source of accurate data. Even if that persistent liar is now telling the truth, some other source needs to forward the claim because this claimant is no longer credible, the fault for non-belief resting entirely on the persistent liar. That's not ad hom, that's just how trustworthiness works.

Topic's author

#16

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 09:39PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 09:39PM

-->

@HistoryBuff

Thanks for the links!

And, here's a similar analysis of Trump versus Biden in the light of Benford's Law,

- - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

Topic's author

#17

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 09:42PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 09:42PM

-->

@oromagi

That's not ad hom, that's just how trustworthiness works.

It's the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".

Topic's author

#18

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 09:44PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 09:44PM

-->

@oromagi

(the % of split-ticket Trump voters MINUS the % of straight-ticket Republican voters)

Excellent point.

You can never add or subtract percentages.

#19

Castin

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,238

3

2

7

Castin

11.15.2020 09:50PM

3

2

7

11.15.2020 09:50PM

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?" That is a necessary question in the detection of misinformation and propaganda. Step one should be consider the source, step two should be consider the content. If the source fails step one you have a valid reason not to proceed to step two, but I am pleased to see that the critical skeptics in this thread have not neglected either step.

#20

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 09:51PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 09:51PM

-->

@3RU7AL

@oromagi
Antrim County reports 19,836 active voters as of October 2020 - - [**]

Why go with active voter numbers before the election? The count is in

16,044 people voted in Antrim County on Nov 3

In 2016 in Antrim County, Trump got about 62% support, beating Democrat Hillary Clinton by about 4,000 votes. - - [**]

and in 2020 in Antrim County, Trump got about 61% support beating Biden by 3,788. Very,very similar to 2016.

Political observers had expressed shock early Wednesday when the county transferred numbers to the state showing Biden beating Trump by about 3,000 votes.

In your OP, you said the county reported 6000 Trump votes for Biden. Which is it?

So, it appears that the vote count in Antrim County did not go 100% for Trump.

Obviously not, in spite of your previous claim.

If Biden was ahead by 3,000 and 6,000 Biden votes were switched back to Trump, that leaves Trump with a lead of about 3,000.

So now you are admitting that the county corrected the reporting error. Of course, the county has retained all the signed paper ballots so there never was a time when Biden was actually ahead.

This gives Trump with a much narrower lead than the tally in 2016 when Trump reportedly won by 8,500 votes.

You just said above that Trump won by 4000 which was accurate

8,469 for Trump vs 4,448 for Clinton

So, we've established that the vote in Antrim County looks almost exactly the same as 4 years
You've admitted that the County quickly corrected a brief reporting error
ALL the Republicans who run that county say the election was clean and they have the ballots to prove it.
Where is the conspiracy? Where are these stolen votes that you are trying to claim?

Topic's author

#21

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 09:54PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 09:54PM

-->

@Castin

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?" That is a necessary question in the detection of misinformation and propaganda. Step one should be consider the source, step two should be consider the content.

The idea of "consider the source" is 100% "to the person" and not "to the claim".

This is the very definition of "ad hominem attack".

Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".

#22

Castin

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,238

3

2

7

Castin

11.15.2020 10:03PM

3

2

7

11.15.2020 10:03PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?" That is a necessary question in the detection of misinformation and propaganda. Step one should be consider the source, step two should be consider the content.
The idea of "consider the source" is 100% "to the person" and not "to the claim".

This is the very definition of "ad hominem attack".

Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".

An attack on a person rather than their arguments. In other words, foul play in a debate environment.

Not "a questioning of the credibility of a source of information." In other words, fair play in a journalistic, scholastic, or scientific environment.

#23

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,897

3

4

10

Greyparrot

11.15.2020 10:10PM

3

4

10

11.15.2020 10:10PM

-->

@Castin

Even if you find a person questionable, there is always the option of analyzing his methodology and the source of his claims over choosing to analyze the man alone. We don't have the technology to know the intentions of people, but we do have a scientific process for data collection.

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?"

Depends on how you go about it, but dismissing claims on the pedigree of the source invariable leads to argument from authority type fallacies.

#24

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

11.15.2020 10:14PM

8

10

11

11.15.2020 10:14PM

-->

@3RU7AL

@Castin
I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?" That is a necessary question in the detection of misinformation and propaganda. Step one should be consider the source, step two should be consider the content.
The idea of "consider the source" is 100% "to the person" and not "to the claim".

This is the very definition of "ad hominem attack".

Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".

Think of it this way-

the counterargument is not "3RU7AL is a liar and his argument therefore disproved"

the counterargument is "3RU7AL's claim lacks any credible evidence in support"

If you used The Onion as a source, would it be an ad-hom on The Onion to say that The Onion is a satirical periodical?

If you used a 4 year old as a source, would it be an ad-hom on the child to say that children are not credible?

We're not arguing with the Dr. Ayyadurai here, we are arguing against your use of such a notoriously bogus source.

Topic's author

#25

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 10:24PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 10:24PM

-->

@Castin

An attack on a person rather than their arguments.

I agree.

In other words, foul play in a debate environment.

How is this "attack on a person rather than their arguments" specific to "a debate environment"?

I mean, if, hypothetically, someone called another member a "conspiracy theorist" or "a complete idiot" in the forums (and not in the "debate" section of this esteemed website) wouldn't that still be considered an ad hominem attack?

Not "a questioning of the credibility of a source of information." In other words, fair play in a journalistic, scholastic, or scientific environment.

Attacking a person, rather than their arguments, would seem to fit the definition of an ad hominem attack in ANY setting.

#26

Castin

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,238

3

2

7

Castin

11.15.2020 10:27PM

3

2

7

11.15.2020 10:27PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Even if you find a person questionable, there is always the option of analyzing his methodology and the source of his claims over choosing to analyze the man alone. We don't have the technology to know the intentions of people, but we do have a scientific process for data collection.

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?"

Depends on how you go about it, but dismissing claims on the pedigree of the source invariable leads to argument from authority type fallacies.

In a perfect world I would have the time to analyze the content of every source no matter its pedigree. But I just don't have that much time and in the real world I have to take shortcuts like "Okay if Alex Jones is saying it, it's ignorable."

#27

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,897

3

4

10

Greyparrot

11.15.2020 10:30PM

3

4

10

11.15.2020 10:30PM

-->

@Castin

"Okay if Alex Jones is saying it, it's ignorable."

Sure you can do that. You can also believe in angels too, nobody will notice or care.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/

For others, their sense of curiosity is far greater than their driving need for complacency and relaxation.

Topic's author

#28

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 10:35PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 10:35PM

-->

@oromagi

the counterargument is not "3RU7AL is a liar and his argument therefore disproved"

Let's take a look at your actual statement from [POST#7]

the counterargument is "3RU7AL's claim lacks any credible evidence in support"

Oh, really?

Is that what you meant when you said,

"I don't think its an ad hom to point out that Dr Ayyadurai is a famous conspiracy theorists whose false reports have previously led to major retractions of claims from the Washington Post and the Smithsonian Institute (Ayyadurai absurdly claims to have invented email while attending high school in 1979, 8 years after the first documented emails were transmitted) Ayyaduria went to MIT but that doesn't make his analysis an "MIT analysis" MIT does publish a well respected voter analysis 6-8 months after the vote. Hell, Michigan won't even publish an official vote count until Nov 23rd. Do we really think MIT is analyzing data that hasn't been published yet?"

Hmmm, I can't find the part where you say anything at all about the claim itself.

Topic's author

#29

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

11.15.2020 10:37PM

3

4

9

11.15.2020 10:37PM

-->

@Castin

In a perfect world I would have the time to analyze the content of every source no matter its pedigree. But I just don't have that much time and in the real world I have to take shortcuts like "Okay if Alex Jones is saying it, it's ignorable."

Ignoring a claim is NOT an ad hominem attack.

Please feel free to ignore any claim at any time for any reason.

#30

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,897

3

4

10

Greyparrot

11.15.2020 10:39PM

3

4

10

11.15.2020 10:39PM

-->

@3RU7AL

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

-Carl Sagan

Remember this quote the next time a politician in Authority tells you to "listen to the science and trust it"