cartman
7d ago
He didn't base his whole campaign for months on locking up JD Vance though.
cartman
8d ago
What are you basing this on? My inclinations run the other way. There is no chance in hell Hillary would ever be appointed to anything
Can you show me any of these people? Where are they? Where is their evidence? You keep saying things as if they're common knowledge that are not at all established. The only woman I have heard of in connection to these rumors recently flatly admitted she repeated them based on what her neighbour heard from someone else with no evidence.
Actually, the normal reaction is to ask for evidence of a baseless claim. I have some crypto to sell you if that's all it takes for you to believe something. My neighbour swears by this coin!!!!
Pets are the most protected class of animals in America. You really think, if there was an epidemic of foreigners devouring cats and dogs from the street, that there would be literally ZERO evidence of this? Rise in missing pets? No videos, incriminating pictures? Despite the droves of people who would be incentivized to catch such behaviour? Don't you think that if they WERE eating pets, they would also be eating other wild animals at much higher rates which WOULD be obvious? Do you have any hard evidence of any of that, other than your favourite unsubstantiated rumours? Please don't bring up the 2 or 3 supposed cases that have already been investigated and debunked, as we can both agree that would be a waste of both our times.
Automatically believing unsubstantiated rumours because they agree with your priors and political pundits is evidence of foolish reasoning and intellect regardless of your political leaning! I'll take brainworms over inability to reason any day!
Even Vance admitted the story was made up! Are you really going to defend his statement longer than he did?
In case you actually don't understand this (hard to believe but hey, you never know!): The dirt isn't magic. The laws and the culture are magic.
'Literal hordes of foreign peasants'. Okay there, calm down, seems like you're getting a bit excited.
Thanks for the diagnosis, I'll be sure to mention it to my doctor. The brainworms too, those sound serious.
cartman
8d ago
After January 20, will you say that Trump still wasn't allowed to win because the actors of the cathedral/deep state/institutions prevent him from enacting serious change? At what point will the goalposts have moved far enough?
Would you say that Republicans didn't allow Harris to win if a Trump voter unaffiliated with the party assassinated her after a win?
Even if what you say happens to be true, the people who said Democrats would steal the election through votes were, flatly, wrong.
cartman
8d ago
Who said I expected anyone to find proof? I don't. What I do expect is that IF people want to make a positive claim, they SHOULD be expected to provide proof for that claim. Or else why should I believe them?
I can assert all manner of things that don't leave behind evidence, and I'm certain you would not believe the vast majority of them based on this specious reasoning
cartman
8d ago
Common cultural practice in the US? Nope. Citation needed.
It's common cultural practice for people to cut the hands off of thieves, that also doesn't happen in the US to the same degree it does elsewhere. Terrible line of reasoning that is. What's very interesting is your epistemic standards for believing something.
cartman
8d ago
Admitting to the error is a good start. Perhaps having a frank discussion in your conservative circles on how this belief came to be would be a good next step.
You were told over and over again by certain pundits that this was 100% going to happen. Maybe reevaluate whether those voices are trustworthy and worth listening to
cartman
8d ago
10 comments in and there has been absolutely no evidence provided for the claim that it was 'beyond obvious' the poll was rigged (not just wrong).
The reason is that you don't have any, and you made a statement you now realize you can't back up, and you refuse to admit to that fact.
Additionally, you make an OP all but sneering at leftists who believe in a certain poll and then have the audacity to act like I am being extra uncharitable to you.
Good luck improving your epistemological standards. Don't let the burden of proof door hit you on the way out
cartman
8d ago
Sure, but that doesn't imply that the simple thesis has more predictive power the next time a coin is flipped. Maybe the Nvidia people got it right the the first time, but you can bet on the fact that when it does inevitably become the bad choice, there will still be people holding onto that simple thesis incorrectly. And the only way to disabuse themselves of that incorrect choice would have been to consider other points of information.
As I said, the past record here is the only thing that gives me pause when claiming that this prediction wasn't as great as claimed. That is by far the best selling point to me, not how close the exact number was this time without considering the nuances
cartman
8d ago
You don't owe anyone an explanation. However, if you claim that something is rigged, that is a completely meaninglessness thing to say without evidence and you should be ridiculed for having no epistemic standards.
'Fraud or incompetence'. So you actually don't admit that you had any particular reason to believe this was rigged rather than wrong? It wasn't 'beyond obvious' that it was rigged? Don't retreat to a more defensible position once pressed a little on your initial claim. That's what intellectually dishonest people and cowards do.
I understand your OP now. At first I thought you were mocking the idea of deferring to experts at all. But now it seems like you're just claiming when YOU look at expert opinions youre doing your own research, but when OTHERS (who don't agree with you) do they are worshipping bought and paid for experts.
I'm confident you completely discount the left leaning folk who believed other polls just as much as the Selzer one, but please prove me wrong if that's not true
cartman
8d ago
Strange how there hasn't been any evidence of it then that I can recall.
Nicknames from 4 decades ago are not evidence.
It can be fun to assert things with no proof, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that it's somehow the more correct approach
Are you taking issue with my conclusion? You mock people who believe in experts, you clearly state that going off a pollsters record is an error, then you turn around and claim to believe evidence from different pollsters. Based off what?
Was I supposed to conclude something other than that you believe your priors? If so, I'm not sure what it would be since you didn't provide any reasoning for believing some pollsters and not others.
Going to keep calling me a fool or do you want to make a claim with any amount of logic or intellect behind it?
Actually, I'll remind you that you claimed the poll was rigged, not just wrong. Care to back that up at all or is that just no-evidence vibes?
cartman
8d ago
Boy would I love to see some accountability from the people who insisted there was no way Trump would be allowed to win the election.
In what sense can you say someone 'predicted' something when all the circumstances of the event in question changed after the prediction was made? That seems a pretty strange claim.
The past record could be a good sign of accuracy but the particular reasoning about this election doesn't make sense to me, unless their claim is that nothing in the last year and a half could have mattered at all.
Take note of the fact that something's being sold here.
cartman
8d ago
Ah okay, so you believe experts and polls when they agree with your priors. Got it.
cartman
9d ago
You're assuming that fairness is some bright line in the middle of a spectrum. I think this is incorrect, there are a lot of ways to impose your will illegitimately/immorally that don't require reaching 'fairness' from a position of disadvantage first.
What other pieces of evidence are you citing? Other polls perhaps? Hmm....
Could you explain it? Or are you going to say another vague nothing about experts that beggars belief with nothing to back it up?
cartman
9d ago
In what way was it 'beyond obvious'?
I don't claim that the poll was particularly good/accurate, but I find it funny how easily people are willing to label a called shot on a probability 'obviously wrong' as soon the result doesn't agree with the slightly higher probability assigned.
If anyone's right, it's those who look at the record of the pollsters they follow and decide who to believe based on how many cumulative shots they've called correctly.
Under what circumstances will you (interested in a sample of opinions) accept the election as legitimate and not having been tampered with to any significant degree?
My question is predicated on the fact that I see a lot of Trump supporters preemptively asserting that there will be significant voter fraud this election. I do think it is quite an increasing trend among the left as well.
For the people on both sides that say the above, what does their candidate winning mean to them? Does it mean that their political rivals did not commit fraud and decided to conduct the election honorably? Or does it mean they committed fraud which was irrelevant or not on a scale large enough to matter? Does it imply that there was fraud committed on both sides? Does it imply they believe their candidate committed fraud but because it's their candidate they don't particularly care?
Does fraud require positive evidence for you, or is it assumed without direct evidence of significant fraud countermeasures?
This might seem like a facetious question, but I have a hard time understanding what political assumptions people have baked in when talking about election fraud (for example, whether it is expected to be a magnitude worse this time than previous elections, or whether it is a common thing that has happened in every election)
My own intuition is that (absent direct evidence of fraud which moved the needle one way or the other) the overwhelming likelihood is on either no significant fraud or fraud here and there on both sides which should mostly cancel out, regardless of which candidate wins. I assume there would be more this election than previously but not an order of magnitude more
I seem to be getting into a bit of a rut with my comments here (I guess I'm frustrated when people display certainty in something that I think is unfounded), but why would a venture fund leader have some premium access to the capital T truth that others do not?
Does your assessment of his accuracy change if, for example, you knew that he had spent 1 minute looking into the issue versus an hour?
Nothing about his tweet implies he looked into this issue in any depth. Maybe there ARE significant benefits that would outweigh the supposed drop in IQ. Maybe other studies found no such IQ drop at all. I have no idea whether this is true, but it seems like an error to dismiss all such claims as completely improbable right off the bat.
I'm not saying it's certainly wrong or a lie or whatever, but taking action based off this tweet seems rather premature
Edit: the report says that fluoride at DOUBLE the recommended limit had this effect. Is it really a scandal that a chemical provided above the recommendations set by health agencies would cause health problems?
More options
Context Copy link