-->
@3RU7AL
rules for thee not for me
January 6th Hearings
Posts
Total:
655
-->
@3RU7AL
which highlights "the problem" with accusing someone of "conspiracy theory"this january sixth thing certainly qualifies
I just explained in detail why Jan 6th does not qualify.
Read post 583 again. Take note of how I laid out all of the characteristics that epitomize a conspiracy theory.
Then take note of how I challenged you to show me how any one of those characteristics apply to January 6th.
Then take note of your complete silence until re-emerging to make the same claim I already refuted for which you had no response.
-->
@Greyparrot
rules for thee not for me
Do you read any of the threads you respond to? Or do you just see someone replying to a lib and think “yeah get him”?
-->
@Double_R
The point of everything I said was that there is a big difference in what meets the technical definition of a conspiracy theory vs what people are actually talking about when they use the term in the colloquial sense.
in other words, what you personally consider "the colloquial sense"
Technically, any two people who commit a crime together is a conspiracy, so technically, anyone who makes the case for their guilt is engaging in a conspiracy theory.
sure
But if you tell someone they are a conspiracy theorist that is not what any normal person understands the term to mean in our society.
some do and some don't
As I already went through, conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are epitomized by certain errors of logic and futilely invalid processes of thinking; the expansion of the theory to include all evidence presented against it, the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies, the usage of the absence of evidence as evidence, and the refusal to provide a clear narrative instead pretending they’re “just asking questions” when it is clear they are making strong insinuations.
exactly which part of this is your "strong defense" ?
That’s what the term “conspiracy theorist” points to. So unless you can show me how I’m guilty of these fallacies you can stop arguing that there is some validity to acting is if a standard police investigation is the same thing. It’s not.
it's perfectly clear that there was no "master plan"
the "burden-of-proof" is on the party making the claim
-->
@3RU7AL
it's perfectly clear that there was no "master plan"
Not clear to the deranged.
-->
@3RU7AL
Regarding conspiracy of technically two or more people.
3Ru...sure
......" To
sum up, while conspiracy is a complex crime, the common denominator is that
criminal conspiracies require agreements, intent to agree, intent to accomplish
an illegal objective and, usually, at least one overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy. "...
However, I recall a conversation with my 2nd cousin, and he was wearing ankle bracelet because of his being out of prison to visit family. So somehow we engaged in conspiracy conversation and I said it takes two to have conspiracy, and he quickly said no, it takes three people, and explained why. I understood and agreed with him.
I cannot recall the explanation. It had nothing to do with the law and crimminal conspiracy only being a minimum of two. His explanation was based on prisoners conspiring against another prisoner. Wish I could remmeber what he stated and I agreed too, cause it made perfect sense to me at that time.
I cant find anything on the net about this concept of taking three people---not just two--- to have a conspiracy.
-->
@3RU7AL
in other words, what you personally consider "the colloquial sense"
No, it’s what the vast majority of society thinks it means:
“A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.
Or how about googling articles on conspiracy theories:
“What drives belief in such conspiracy theories? While in earlier decades belief in conspiracy theories often was dismissed as pathological (Hofstadter, 1966), accumulating evidence reveals that conspiracy theories are common among surprisingly large numbers of citizens. The potential impact and breadth of conspiracy theories was underscored in 2016, when Donald Trump was elected US President despite propagating a range of highly implausible conspiracy theories throughout his campaign. These theories included allegations that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, that Barack Obama was not born in the US, and that vaccines cause autism. The social sciences have increasingly recognized the importance of understanding conspiracy beliefs, and empirical research on this phenomenon has proliferated in the past decade.
Google any article on conspiracy theories and show me which ones are not using the colloquial definition I am. Notice how every article on them asks the same question: “why do people believe in conspiracy theories?”. That alone proves my point, if what people were talking about was something reasonable that question wouldn’t need to be asked.
exactly which part of this is your "strong defense" ?
The part where you apply what I said to the conversation. If you are unwilling to do that it’s not on me that you still don’t understand this.
the "burden-of-proof" is on the party making the claim
I’ve been preaching this for years, and nothing I’ve said here or anywhere in this site has suggested or implied otherwise.
-->
@Double_R
in other words, what you personally consider "the colloquial sense"No, it’s what the vast majority of society thinks it means:
argumentum ad populum
-->
@Double_R
exactly which part of this is your "strong defense" ?The part where you apply what I said to the conversation. If you are unwilling to do that it’s not on me that you still don’t understand this.
please be slightly more specific
you claim that you provided specifics
and even referred to a specific post you made
that did not provide any specifics
-->
@Double_R
the "burden-of-proof" is on the party making the claimI’ve been preaching this for years, and nothing I’ve said here or anywhere in this site has suggested or implied otherwise.
oh, good
i thought you believed in the conspiracy theory of january sixth
i'm ever so glad we cleared that up
-->
@3RU7AL
argumentum ad populum
We’re talking about what a word means. Guess how we figure that out? By looking at how other people use the word.
you claim that you provided specificsand even referred to a specific post you madethat did not provide any specifics
Why is this so difficult? We’re talking about what makes one’s insinuations a “conspiracy theory”. I gave you multiple examples. How much more specific do I need to be? Would you like me to provide further examples of these fallacies in action? Let’s look at post 583… again:
“conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are epitomized by certain errors of logic and futilely invalid processes of thinking; the expansion of the theory to include all evidence presented against it, the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies, the usage of the absence of evidence as evidence, and the refusal to provide a clear narrative instead pretending they’re “just asking questions” when it is clear they are making strong insinuations.”
oh, goodi thought you believed in the conspiracy theory of january sixthi'm ever so glad we cleared that up
Now I think you’re just trolling, there is no way you, in good faith, don’t get this by now.
I’ve challenged you repeatedly and then pointed out repeatedly how you’ve ignored every challenge I’ve given you to explain how anything I’ve argued for regarding J6 qualifies under what I just explained is a conspiracy theory. If you are not going to engage in the conversation you can stop replying to it.
-->
@Double_R
We’re talking about what a word means. Guess how we figure that out? By looking at how other people use the word.
except for the word "atheist" apparently
-->
@Double_R
“conspiracy theories in the colloquial sense are epitomized by certain errors of logic and futilely invalid processes of thinking; the expansion of the theory to include all evidence presented against it, the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies, the usage of the absence of evidence as evidence, and the refusal to provide a clear narrative instead pretending they’re “just asking questions” when it is clear they are making strong insinuations.”
all of these apply to your january sixth conspiracy theory
-->
@3RU7AL
except for the word "atheist" apparently
The debate you are referencing was explicitly about what the word atheist *should* be accepted to mean.
This conversation is about what the term “conspiracy theory” *does* mean.
Two completely different conversations.
all of these apply to your january sixth conspiracy theory
Give me one example.
-->
@Double_R
This conversation is about what the term “conspiracy theory” *does* mean.
well, i certainly don't share your view of the term
and a little research shows that your interpretation of that particular term only became popularized in the 1980s
so
not really, "universally accepted"
and, you're ignoring the fact that you're making an implicit argument that - - because you perceive your interpretation as popular, that means i SHOULD agree, which is, the very essence of argumentum ad populum
-->
@Double_R
all of these apply to your january sixth conspiracy theoryGive me one example.
the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies
"i can't believe that trump didn't plan this"
-->
@3RU7AL
well, i certainly don't share your view of the termand a little research shows that your interpretation of that particular term only became popularized in the 1980s
That was 40 years ago. Please explain how that makes you're point and not mine.
and, you're ignoring the fact that you're making an implicit argument that - - because you perceive your interpretation as popular, that means i SHOULD agree, which is, the very essence of argumentum ad populum
No, I'm making the argument that because the vast majority of people perceive the word in this way, that is what we should understand as the default position what people are talking about when they use the term.
The fallacy in argumentum ad populum is presuming X is true because people say it is. It is not a fallacy when X is literally defined as "whatever people say it is".
In case you didn't realize this, that's how all words work.
Give me one example.the usage of argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity fallacies"i can't believe that trump didn't plan this"
You're not even trying, so I don't understand why you bother.
"I can't believe Trump didn't plan this"... Therefore... What?
Could you at least present the argument?
And then, the part that actually matters... Can you point to where I committed this fallacy?
-->
@Double_R
In case you didn't realize this, that's how all words work.
words constantly evolve
-->
@Double_R
Can you point to where I committed this fallacy?
no, because you haven't made a specific claim
-->
@Double_R
"I can't believe Trump didn't plan this"... Therefore... What?
therefore, trump planned this
-->
@3RU7AL
"I can't believe Trump didn't plan this"... Therefore... What?therefore, trump planned this
The argument that Trump planned this comes from the mountains of evidence we've known about and have recently learned from the J6 committee.
Trump is the one who announced the rally on J6 saying it will "be wild".
Trump's own aids testified that he planned to lead them to the Capitol and that he wanted the metal detectors gone because in his words; they weren't there to hurt him.
While all this was going on, Trump sat in thhe dining room watching it all unfold on TV. During the three hours the country watched in horror, not one phone call was made to anyone to ensure federal resources were being deployed. Mike Pence had to do it from a bunker.
To this day Trump said the reason they did what they did is because"they are smart".
There's plenty more, but that's the gist of it. The idea that anyone thinks Trump planned this purely because they cannot believe otherwise is ridiculous.
Do better.
-->
@Double_R
the mountains of evidence
obviously there was some planning for a protest (but not an "insurrection" or a "coup d'état")
there have been other protests that were attempts to "stop a vote" on a particular subject at a particular time
there are even protests that occupied government facilities like state capitals
and there wasn't nearly the outrage associated with this thing
the protesters were there to protest the "certification procedure" and i'm guessing the vote was delayed, but not stopped
-->
@3RU7AL
Those wasn't like any other protest. These were people assembled by the president of the United States in response to his claims that American democracy had been hijacked by evil and nefarious forces within the US Capitol. The idea that they were just there to peacefully protest is absurd on it's face. What good is protesting to people who just stole your voice because they didn't give a rats ass about what you wanted?
But common sense aside, the intelligence was there that this was going to be more than just a protest. That's why you have people like ILP5 leading the charge to investigate Nancy Pelosi. They love having their cake and eating it too, but if congress had this intelligence then so did the president, and he held the rally anyway. That tells us lot.
And so does the fact that Trump did nothing for over 3 hours while all of this was unfolding. Not one phone call to anyone, not the secretary of defense, not to Homeland security, no one (except for his buddies in Congress to not certify the results, the exact same thing the protesters wanted). If you are the president and you make a conscious decision to do nothing while an attack was going on there is only one reason; because you want it to continue.
And then there is three fact that no one was allowed to keep any record on Trump's whereabouts through those whole period. The WH photographer was not allowed to photograph him, no recording devices were allowed anywhere near him, the call logs were wiped, his calendar was wiped... Literally all scrubbed. You don't do that unless you have something to hide.
This isn't close.
-->
@Double_R
And then there is three fact that no one was allowed to keep any record on Trump's whereabouts through those whole period. The WH photographer was not allowed to photograph him, no recording devices were allowed anywhere near him, the call logs were wiped, his calendar was wiped... Literally all scrubbed. You don't do that unless you have something to hide.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not an argument from ignorance. When someone goes out of their way to ensure no records of their whereabouts or actions are documented, that's because they don't want people to know what they're doing. And when someone doesn't want people to know what they're doing, it's because they have something to hide.
This common sense, which is the opposite of ignorance.
-->
@Double_R
absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence
-->
@3RU7AL
Im not using the absence of evidence as evidence, I'm using the effort made to ensure no recording of the event took place as evidence.
Why is this so confusing to you?
Again, under any normal circumstance we would have all of this information. The WH photographer is literally paid to record major moments in the president's term. This was a major moment, yet there are no photos.
WH call logs showing who the president spoke to are normal records that are supposed to be maintained.
A calendar showing the president's activities is supposed to be maintained.
WH aids testified that concealing all of this was a deliberate and concerted effort.
That's evidence.
An example of the absence is evidence being used as evidence is the claim that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon because the government won't release the tapes (even though they did). This is a fallacy because there is no reason for the government to release what the conspiracy theorists are looking for even if they had them.
Two completely different things.
-->
@Double_R
That's evidence.
evidence of what exactly ?
-->
@3RU7AL
Among the thirty accusers of Burroughs was nineteen-year-old Mercy Lewis, a refugee of the frontier wars. Lewis, the most imaginative and forceful of the young accusers, offered unusually vivid testimony against Burroughs. Lewis told the court that Burroughs flew her to the top of a mountain and, pointing toward the surrounding land, promised her all the kingdoms if only she would sign in his book (a story very similar to that found in Matthew 4:8). Lewis said, "I would not writ if he had throwed me down on one hundred pitchforks." At an execution, a defendant in the Puritan colonies was expected to confess, and thus to save his soul. When Burroughs on Gallows Hill continued to insist on his innocence and then recited the Lord's Prayer perfectly (something witches were thought incapable of doing), the crowd reportedly was "greatly moved." The agitation of the crowd caused Cotton Mather to intervene and remind the crowd that Burroughs had had his day in court and lost.
One victim of the Salem witch hunt was not hanged, but rather pressed under heavy stones until his death. Such was the fate of octogenarian Giles Corey who, after spending five months in chains in a Salem jail with his also accused wife, had nothing but contempt for the proceedings. Seeing the futility of a trial and hoping that by avoiding a conviction his farm, that would otherwise go the state, might go to his two sons-in-law, Corey refused to stand for trial. The penalty for such a refusal was peine et fort, or pressing. Three days after Corey's death, on September 22, 1692, eight more convicted witches, including Giles' wife Martha, were hanged.
Probs this kind of "evidence"
-->
@3RU7AL
evidence of what exactly ?
Im going to respond to this question in detail, but until you have something more to contribute to the conversation other than these pointless one liners this will be my last post on this.
The claim here is that Trump intended for mob rioters to attack the US Capitol. The evidence for this claim is too long to list on detail, but I'll summarize it below:
A) Trump spent months riling up his supporters to believe the election was stolen
B) Trump is the one who announced that there would be a rally on January 6th and invited everyone to come to DC telling them "it will be wild"
C) Trump was well aware of the threat this posed but held the rally anyway telling the crowd among other things to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"
D) While the attack was unfolding, not only did Trump do nothing to stop it, but the only actions he took were to advance the same goals as the mob including calling senators to pressure them to vote against certifying the results and inciting them further by attacking Mike Pence publicly
E) Trump made a deliberate and concerted attempt to ensure no records were kept of his activities or whereabouts while the attacks were taking place
F) To this day Trump has never separated himself from the mob. Just last week he called them "smart" for doing what they did.
A, & C are a strong indications of intent. You can't simultaneously argue that you wanted the rally to be peaceful when the central greivance is that their vote and voices of those rallying have been stolen. Also once you are made aware that there are serious threats of violence and this was not your intent, the only rational response is a significant attempt to de-escalate. No serious effort was made, quite the opposite in fact.
B demonstrates that Trump visioned an event like this. "Will be wild"? Clearly he was not expecting a normal protest
D confirms that Trump was happy to see what was happening. When you have the power and responsibility to intervene and choose not to, the only valid explanation is that you want what's happening to continue.
D & F demonstrate an alignment of goals and values between Trump and the mob
E demonstrates conciseness of guilt. You do not cover up your actions in real time unless you know they are illegal/immoral.
These 6 points are incompatible with a man who did not want the mob to do what it did. They are entirely consistent with someone who did. Applying the basic Occam's razor test, it is far more likely and far more reasonable that Trump wanted and intended for the mob to attack the Capitol than to claim he didn't. The latter is quite frankly absurd.