-->
@Double_R
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim.
Let’s face it, MAGA voters are stupid
Posts
Total:
234
-->
@ILikePie5
The media is basically a cartel at this point lol
Right, the media is fixing prices.
-->
@3RU7AL
hiii!
-->
@3RU7AL
Irrational and unacceptable."if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen"bingo
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We know Congress does insider trading because of the hundreds of millions of dollars they accumulate while in office (Obama was one of the worst)
But there's no possible way to detect it other than seeing the effects.
-->
@Greyparrot
President Obama signed a law banning insider trading by members of Congress, the president and federal workers.
-->
@FLRW
With a knowing wink and a smile. Like Imelda Marcos.
-->
@Greyparrot
Don’t forget about the very lucrative speech circuit and book deals. I mean, Biden has earned as much as $200k for a single speech! Is that surprising? Let’s see an example of his inspirational style and charisma:
-->
@cristo71
Don't forget those $500k paintings by Picasso jr.
-->
@Greyparrot
OMG, you are really Alex Jones, aren't you?
-->
@FLRW
I wish I was so I could afford one of those rare Hunter paintings.
-->
@cristo71
I can't believe those kids had the nerve to bully the POTUS around like that.
See: Our collective malady: Donald Trump's mental health crisis is America's problem
-->
@Greyparrot
A fair analogy.We know Congress does insider trading because of the hundreds of millions of dollars they accumulate while in office (Obama was one of the worst)But there's no possible way to detect it other than seeing the effects.
In more abstract terms: this is misapplied burden of proof.
We're not talking about a flying spaghetti monster or some distant object in space.
We're not even talking about convicting anyone of a crime (which does morally require proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
We're talking about a duty to produce and maintain a system that is one, both, or a hybrid of: verifiable (auditable), invulnerable to fraud
I am reminded of how easily the left-tribe resorts to statistics when it comes to rape (#meto), "systemic racism", and the dangers of covid.
For a left-triber to understand the monumental stupidity of suggesting that if no one is convicted there was no fraud imagine this: When told that masks and vaccinations are necessary, the response is "you haven't convicted me of having spreading covid".
President Obama signed a law banning insider trading by members of Congress, the president and federal workers.
-->
@FLRW
President Obama signed a law banning insider trading by members of Congress, the president and federal workers.
Literally false lol
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I provided 11 examples, the list; the immediate context was going into the details of one of those examples. In that immediate context you start denying there is a wider pattern as a way to excuse the specific example.I could give the 11 examples again, you would say "nah uh none of those are examples, for instance [starts talking about specific example]" I point out how the specific example is misinformation/false by the standards applied to narratives promoted by the propagandist and you'll go "oh there is no pattern though"It's a big circle and I'm not following you around it.
Nonsense. I didn't back out of our conversation on the specific example you picked. In post 109 I began by responding directly to your comments on that example. You then went down another path with another comment that I also responded to:
The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports
So I pointed out that you haven't provided a single example to back up this statement (because we are still discussing it) so you were begging the question here, something I've noticed you do frequently.
So no, I'm not the one ducking and dodging here. You completely dropped the discussion on the one example and then went on to pretendI was the ones who did so. The dishonesty is almost impressive.
people who counted the ballots -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulentthe supervisors they worked under -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulentthe officials they reported to -> could only check with the people who counted the ballotsthe officials tasked with verifying their results -> could only check with the officials the ballot counters were reporting to (or the machines that counted the ballots and had no way of detecting fraudulent ones) and thus could not possibly fulfill their task
So in other words... You accept that the election not being stolen is not just a claim that came from a few officials at the top telling us so.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.
So what exactly is the argument that the election was stolen? All I've gathered from you so far is that mail in ballots were susceptible to fraud, therefore they were fraudulent, therefore Trump really won.
Does that sum it up?
-->
@Double_R
“How do you substantiate your belief that there were, in fact, whips involved?”
Your lack of an answer leads me to conclude that some video footage provided sufficient evidence in your view of the presence of whips and the inexcusable whipping of people. Your standard of evidence, and that of the journalists involved as well as the Whitehouse, for what constitutes an act of an agent of the federal government whipping defenseless people seems to be rather low— too low to be consistent with reality, as it turned out.
-->
@Double_R
You completely dropped the discussion on the one example
Nope that was you, see the above cristo question. You're waffling instead of admitting that they ran a false story about whips and millions of people believed it and there was obviously no system for verification, fact checking, or retraction.
If you did admit that it would be evidence that the secure and reliable source of information you believe in might just be an illusion.
So in other words... You accept that the election not being stolen is not just a claim that came from a few officials at the top telling us so.
It comes from millions of people, probably on the order of 150 million. All similarly unable to substantiate their claims because the system is unverifiable. Most of those think they know this because election officials would know, but they don't because they can't.
That's what I said, that the only reason you have to claim accuracy would be the assertions of people who you think would be in the position to know and whom you trust to tell the truth.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.So what exactly is the argument that the election was stolen? All I've gathered from you so far is that mail in ballots were susceptible to fraud, therefore they were fraudulent, therefore Trump really won.Does that sum it up?
No. This sums it up:
If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.
This can be derived from the claimed implicit social contract and the implicit requirements for all social conventions where trust is indispensable. It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).
To inane sheeple such procedures are to give election officials busy work. However I have a theory that it's part of a grand conspiracy by various legislatures and constitutional thinkers to enforce their notion that not just any national ritual constitutes an election; it needs to be provable as the accurate will of the people and when it isn't there are those who are to be held liable.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whips and bleach. The bread and butter of modern propaganda.
The bread and butter of modern propaganda.
Everything is propaganda to Libertarians. Because they are morons.
-->
@ILikePie5
You are talking about Trump, right?
President-elect Donald Trump insisted that he can do all the business deals he wants while serving in the White House, but a 2012 law barring insider trading by government officials could make doing so a lot more complicated.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge — STOCK — Act bars members of Congress and their staffs from buying and selling securities based on inside information. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics recently said the law also covers executive branch employees, including the president and vice president.
Some government ethics experts argue that the law should also apply to Trump and his family's network of businesses.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge — STOCK — Act bars members of Congress and their staffs from buying and selling securities based on inside information. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics recently said the law also covers executive branch employees, including the president and vice president.
Some government ethics experts argue that the law should also apply to Trump and his family's network of businesses.
-->
@cristo71
“How do you substantiate your belief that there were, in fact, whips involved?”Your lack of an answer leads me to conclude that some video footage provided sufficient evidence in your view of the presence of whips and the inexcusable whipping of people. Your standard of evidence, and that of the journalists involved as well as the Whitehouse, for what constitutes an act of an agent of the federal government whipping defenseless people seems to be rather low— too low to be consistent with reality, as it turned out.
So to recap; you began with a loaded question. Then you took my lack of an answer as evidence that your loaded question was based on truth, then used your fallacious conclusion to criticize my standards.
Your question was posed in post 108. In the very next post (109) to ADreamOfLiberty I began by addressing that very concept. If you want to know my answer feel free to go back and read it.
The reason I stopped responding to you is because it became clear that you were not interested in a substantive conversation on this topic. You were focused on catching IWR in a "gotcha" rather than addressing the actual question he was raising about journalistic integrity. Instead you focused on stories that turned out to be wrong because those are the words he used, a meaningless conversation to have by way of anecdotes.
-->
@Double_R
Loaded question? These are your words:
Ok, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips…
I don’t confuse your weak sauce backpedaling for you never having made the claim as you seem to wish. I’m not one of those who simply watched a video and readily believed that agents of our oppressive, heteronormative patriarchy were keeping defenseless black people in line by mercilessly whipping them, presumably pining for the “good ole days” when a proud white man could do so with impunity and even solely for sport. I try to avoid jumping to conclusions.
Invoking the historical imagery of an “agent of white supremacy” using a whip on a defenseless black person is surely intended to evoke a visceral response and sense of outrage, which it surely did. Mission accomplished and with no apologies offered to the falsely accused. You know, a propaganda tactic only right wing media is supposed to resort to.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're waffling instead of admitting that they ran a false story about whips and millions of people believed it
The story wasn't about whips. I already explained that. No one who "believed" the story gave a rats ass whether the agents were carrying whips, split reins, or oversized Twizzlers. That wasn't what the story was about.
This is like when someone says the earth is round and you come along saying "no, it's an oblate spheroid". Please stop being that guy.
A techinal inaccuracy and a false story are two very different things.
This is like when someone says the earth is round and you come along saying "no, it's an oblate spheroid". Please stop being that guy.
A techinal inaccuracy and a false story are two very different things.
That's what I said, that the only reason you have to claim accuracy would be the assertions of people who you think would be in the position to know and whom you trust to tell the truth.
This is why in logic we have a philosophic burden of proof. Naturally, because you have no evidence of fraud, your tactic is to try and reverse the burden into "proving innocence". That is not how it works. We do not assume fraud at the outset. Fraud is the thing that if asserted, needs evidentiary support.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
This sums it up:
If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.
If I show up at a polling station with my ID, sign the form and cast a ballot, fraud cannot be ruled out. I could very easily have used a fake ID and looked at the signature beforehand. Does this mean we get rid of in person voting as well?
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. In those cases, just like any other including voting, we set up rules/standards based entirely on the specifics of what the goal is.
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. In those cases, just like any other including voting, we set up rules/standards based entirely on the specifics of what the goal is.
A democracy does not work unless everyone has an opportunity to participate. The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse. Moreover, you pretend as if anyone could just fill out a mail in ballot and there are no checks and balances to ensure its integrity. That's total nonsense.
So no, none of these examples are analogous and your requirement that fraud be "ruled out" before we accept a ballot is untenable. Again, if you are alleging fraud, provide the evidence. That's how it works. That's how it should work. That's how it will always work.
It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).
This is called a safeguard.
I have question; do you believe the 2020 election in Florida should be accepted as the accurate results?
-->
@Double_R
I already explained that. No one who "believed" the story gave a rats ass whether the agents were carrying whips, split reins, or oversized Twizzlers.
Absurd, dismissed.
Naturally, because you have no evidence of fraud, your tactic is to try and reverse the burden into "proving innocence". That is not how it works.
It is when there is a duty to maintain integrity.
We do not assume fraud at the outset.
Then you must believe Stalin was elected with an overwhelming majority.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
The system changed from a democracy to not-a-democracy removing the last battered excuse to obey or respect it. You might be able to argue that it was never a democracy, which still leaves us with: zero loyalty owed, 100% hypocrisy from the "our democracy" gang.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
Speak for yourself, not others. The difference isn't that I don't need information, it's that I integrate. That means I evaluate correlated probabilities to choose which side of a contradiction to disbelieve.
This sums it up:If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.If I show up at a polling station with my ID
You don't need ID to vote in person. A hundred times I've told this to people, but they keep bringing in the ID because it makes sense that you do. (in my state which is typical)
sign the form and cast a ballot
There is no signature checking for in person voting. (in my state which is typical)
sign the form and cast a ballot, fraud cannot be ruled out.
The the chances of discovering/preventing the fraud scales by a characteristic factor times the quantity of attempted fraud for every possible system and sophistication of cheaters. It just so happens that this factor is an order of magnitude larger for mass mail in balloting (as practiced).
Does this mean we get rid of in person voting as well?
Whenever "this" = a mechanism for cheating it means a system needs to be introduced that either detects and quantifies it or prevents it. It's not in-person-voting that is intrinsically secure. In person voting as practiced before the covid friendly lawsuits and panic was inherently more secure than the mass mailed ballots as practiced.
I'm sure there is some way to use mail in a remote voting system that is secure but it's been stupid since the first SSL certificate was issued.
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.
and therefore even more trust is required? I could buy that argument.
The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse.
...and yet that is precisely what many laws implied was necessary. Ballot boxes are locked and signed for at every stage. Witnesses are needed (and must sign) every time the box is opened, which means at every counting.
Why didn't democracy collapse under those rules?
Moreover, you pretend as if anyone could just fill out a mail in ballot and there are no checks and balances to ensure its integrity. That's total nonsense.
I pretend no such thing. A single leak could be shared anonymously allowing an unlimited number of single man cells to work on inside information. Those one man cells have essentially no vulnerable surface in stark contrast to attempting to impersonate someone at a polling station.
This is obvious. If you are a teen trying to get alcohol every time someone asks for ID is a risk. Do it enough and you will be caught. If you could mail order alcohol then even including a copy of photo ID would be meaningless as there would be no face to check it against. Even if the order is refused no risk was incurred and one can attempt limited only by one's spare time.
That's how it works. That's how it should work. That's how it will always work.
Political power issues from the barrel of a gun. That is how it will always work. If enough people (or AI) controlling gun barrels stop trusting a system, that system will no longer matter. That is how it will always work.
Nothing is guaranteed to be rational, but in order to be blameless of violence one should care about how it should work, and best way to minimize the fallout of a breach of trust is to minimize the trust required and the consequences of breaches.
Therefore transparency is of enormous value and the burden of proof for critical social structures must default against abuse. Hence (again): Innocent until proven guilty, entrusted valuables are stolen until proven otherwise, ballots are fraudulent until proven otherwise, scientific claims are false until proven otherwise, etc... etc...
It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).This is called a safeguard.
They call the 2nd amendment a safeguard too. In the end it doesn't matter if you want to trust insecure so called elections. Social contracts are negotiated. Whether you consider it necessary or not is irrelevant. Whether you think it's epistemologically appropriate to assume Stalin and Putin are wildly popular because nobody has absolute proof that millions of ballots were fraudulent is irrelevant.
What is relevant is only this: You claim to submit to the authority of democracy, so does the opposing tribe. The obvious choice going forward is catering to the most paranoid until the overwhelming majority once again believe they are living in a democracy. The most likely reason to resist adoption of secure systems going forward is the knowledge of and consent to fraud and that is exactly how it will be taken.
I have question; do you believe the 2020 election in Florida should be accepted as the accurate results?
Since it wasn't a locus of investigation or reports of fraud I have not looked into the details of their procedures. It is possible they used mechanisms which limited the potential scale of mail ballot fraud.
It doesn't matter if I accept the results of one state or another. Enough are in doubt that the federal result is in doubt. When Trump says it was stolen from him, it is not a baseless claim. Biden could (and probably would have) claimed the same thing. There is no possible mechanism to recover an accurate result and therefore there is no remedy but a secure election.
At the time I would have supported a military lockdown for the purpose of conducting an immediate true election by mass canvas using the entire reserve and national guard force randomly mixed, accompanied by partisan judges, and recording every interaction.
Now that we've lived in a fake democracy long enough for more fake elections to loom the solution is simply to convert the next fake election into a true election. I'm not holding my breath, but that is what it would take to not immediately jump on the first realistic opportunity to destroy the federal government by force.
-->
@cristo71
I don’t confuse your weak sauce backpedaling for you never having made the claim as you seem to wish.
With every interaction you continue to show more and more that your allegations of me being closed minded and uninterested in a productive rational dialog are pure projection.
Once again, the story here was not about which tool the agents were using. The only people who care about that are the people searching for any factual inaccuracy they can find as an excuse to label the story propaganda and shut off all thinking thereafter.
The story was about the conduct of the agents. You can watch that video and take no issue with it all you want, that doesn't mean it didn't resonate with many people and no one who watched the video and took issue with it would have changed their minds if someone came along and said "duh those aren't whips those are split reins".
This is like reading a headline "woman is crushed when a man stomped over her with his boots" and then claiming the story is propaganda because the man was wearing loafers. It's just plain stupid.
So you can think my "backpedaling" is weak all you want, all you're demonstrating is an unwillingness to understand alternative viewpoints and to address other people's criticisms for what they actually are.
-->
@Double_R
Back to where it started then. My original claim of a media false claim:
“9. ICE whipping migrants”
Your response:
There were instances of this. How heavily it was reported compared to how often it was happening I don't know.
Since then, it has just been backpedaling and goalpost adjustment attempts on your part rather than good faith retraction.
-->
@Double_R
After I say this:
“Invoking the historical imagery of an “agent of white supremacy” using a whip on a defenseless black person is surely intended to evoke a visceral response and sense of outrage, which it surely did. Mission accomplished and with no apologies offered to the falsely accused. You know, a propaganda tactic only right wing media is supposed to resort to.”
You respond with this:
You can watch that video and take no issue with it all you want, that doesn't mean it didn't resonate with many people and no one who watched the video and took issue with it would have changed their minds if someone came along and said "duh those aren't whips those are split reins".
It must be your selective reading comprehension again.