why do you think this is the biggest voting turnout on us history? it's because trump was so bad everyone couldn't wait to vote him out!
He is wrong buddhists are allowed to have sex
https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2018/12/14/how-do-buddhists-have-sex-8249020/amp/
Great, I have the list. If you're actually interested in settling this, here are the steps that must be followed:Put up or shut up.
What? "Not having sex" is not an ideal. What are you even blathering on about? I've never posted anything that's anti-sex.Of course @AmandaRose and @Lacius will tell you that you are wrong, because they care so much about honest representation and genuine understanding.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's a logical fault that both you and @Lacius are failing to acknowledge. Personally, I cannot verify the vote. It is not transparent--so even if you do appeal to authority, it does not gain my confidence.
The only candidate who demonstrated any examples of authoritarianism is Donald Trump. Hell, he is right now trying to throw out legally cast ballots in an effort to retain power.Biden wins? welcome USA in the dictatorship
What's with the disclaimer? Just post it. It's not my feelings that you are trying to protect.Great, I have the list. If you're actually interested in settling this, here are the steps that must be followed:
If you can't or won't do any one of these steps, then you're demonstrably being disingenuous when you say "put up or shut up," and nobody needs to pay attention to you.
- You need to request that I post the list (I'm not going to waste time doing this now, since I don't think you actually care to see it).
- I will post the list.
- You will provide evidence backing up the various claims on that list.
What? "Not having sex" is not an ideal. What are you even blathering on about? I've never posted anything that's anti-sex.
If there is widespread voter fraud, then there is evidence. If there is zero evidence, then there is no widespread voter fraud. You want to have your cake an eat it too. This is a situation where nuance is important. Previously, you have made claims that are more aligned with reality, ie: "Trump hasn't presented evidence"--even though it wasn't considered substantial evidence, it still is evidence, but I'll let you have that. What I dispute about what you do is that you is make a statement that accounts for all of reality and possibility, essentially stating that it cannot exist.I never once argued "there's no widespread voter fraud." As I've said repeatedly, there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. So, I am not arguing that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence
Disagree. Stating that there is zero evidence is, by extension, saying that there is no widespread voter fraud.I'm arguing absence of evidence equals absence of evidence, lol. Your argument falls apart here and now.
I need at least one hypothetical example where this can be true so that I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you are *not backpedaling.That all being said, absence of evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence. It's a common misconception that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.
So as long as only a specific group of people are restricted, a person can restrict them with no limits and not be a dictator. Is that your logic?Bad comparison, transgender comparison against restrictions that affect the whole people
Care to elaborate what you actually mean by that statement?I would rather call that the lesser evil
What's with the disclaimer? Just post it. It's not my feelings that you are trying to protect.
Be specific please. I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't see how what is possible?Lol. I don't see how it is possible, but it's lost on you.
It is possible for there to be widespread voter fraud without there being evidence of widespread voter fraud, but the time to believe there was widespread voter fraud is when there's evidence of widespread voter fraud. I didn't once make the argument that there was definitely no widespread voter fraud (not that I don't believe this), and I never once said there absolutely couldn't be evidence of widespread voter fraud. I've only ever said there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and that's correct.If there is widespread voter fraud, then there is evidence. If there is zero evidence, then there is no widespread voter fraud. You want to have your cake an eat it too. This is a situation where nuance is important. Previously, you have made claims that are more aligned with reality, ie: "Trump hasn't presented evidence"--even though it wasn't considered substantial evidence, it still is evidence, but I'll let you have that. What I dispute about what you do is that you is make a statement that accounts for all of reality and possibility, essentially stating that it cannot exist.
That's not how logic works. I can say there's zero evidence of extraterrestrial aliens, for example, but that's not necessarily an argument that they don't exist, and I wouldn't make that argument.Disagree. Stating that there is zero evidence is, by extension, saying that there is no widespread voter fraud.
First, it doesn't matter, since I didn't argue anything other than "there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud," which means I didn't make the argument that absence of evidence is in this case evidence of absence (not that I'm saying I don't agree with that).I need at least one hypothetical example where this can be true so that I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you are *not backpedaling.
A society that restricts the civil rights of a group can restrict the civil rights of any group. In other words, a society that's unjust for some is inherently unjust. A society that isn't free for some is a society that isn't free.Bad comparison, transgender comparison against restrictions that affect the whole people
well one side is consistently posting multiple sources, the other is just making claims. i wouldnt say theyre equalHonestly @Lacius and @tabzer I am getting tired of you both playing that little game of "I'm right, no I'M RIGHT!".
Pages and pages of pointless argument over something as simple as "show evidence of voting fraud", simply because each side is refusing to post their sources as long as the other one doesn't.
Sure this is pretty amusing to watch but damn I seriously wonder if you don't have anything better to do with your free time instead.
I won't be exaggerating saying this "argument" has been going for over 100 pages now.
Maybe is it time to maybe back up the statements (both of yours) instead of being so stubborn about waiting for the other person to make a move first?
Just passing by and felt like posting my observation.
Have a good day folks.