Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[djpannda]

Idk. For a group of people attributing all those bunk court losses to Trump, it's not a reach to assume that's already what you are doing.

Oh man so sad.. tabzer with is trolling excuses

 

[tabzer]

Oh man so sad.. tabzer with is trolling excuses

1st, nobody wants to be you. 2nd It is not an excuse, it is a comparison.

Nice way try to twist my words,

How did I twist your words. Harder proof (or evidence) of voter fraud exists more than proof (or evidence) that there isn't. It seems like that many people prefer knowing the truth over agreeing with the narrative.

 

[KingVamp]

How did I twist your words. Harder proof (or evidence) of voter fraud exists more than proof (or evidence) that there isn't. It seems like that many people prefer knowing the truth over agreeing with the narrative.

That's why over 60 court cases wasn't thrown out, oh wait.

 

[Plasmaster09]

1st, nobody wants to be you. 2nd It is not an excuse, it is a comparison.



How did I twist your words. Harder proof (or evidence) of voter fraud exists more than proof (or evidence) that there isn't. It seems like that many people prefer knowing the truth over agreeing with the narrative.

1st, fuck off trying to be a Chad Hominem.
2nd, it's not a comparison, it's a poorly-done tu quoque fallacy.
Also, there isn't significant hard evidence of voter fraud. That's the entire point. It's vacuous bullshit, and Trump's numerous attempts to take our very democracy to court have proven that by failing miserably.

 

[tabzer]

1st, fuck off trying to be a Chad Hominem.
2nd, it's not a comparison, it's a poorly-done tu quoque fallacy.
Also, there isn't significant hard evidence of voter fraud. That's the entire point. It's vacuous bullshit, and Trump's numerous attempts to take our very democracy to court have proven that by failing miserably.

Lol, ok. As long as it's in another language it must be legit. The "you are always wrong, I am allowed to be a hypocrite" fallacy.

Nice.

We have many people who demonstrate that they don't care about finding the truth, but that they would prefer to embellish their narrative.

As long as more people hate politicians because if this BS, I am satisfied.

 

[Lacius]

Lol, ok. As long as it's in another language it must be legit. The "you are always wrong, I am allowed to be a hypocrite" fallacy.

Nice.

We have many people who demonstrate that they don't care about finding the truth, but that they would prefer to embellish their narrative.

As long as more people hate politicians because if this BS, I am satisfied.

You've accepted the claim that the election was "probably rigged," despite you being unaware of any evidence that the election was rigged. You are the one who doesn't care about finding the truth.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Lol, ok. As long as it's in another language it must be legit. The "you are always wrong, I am allowed to be a hypocrite" fallacy.

Nice.

We have many people who demonstrate that they don't care about finding the truth, but that they would prefer to embellish their narrative.

As long as more people hate politicians because if this BS, I am satisfied.

...no???
Ad hominem is "to the person"- the "nobody wants to be you" is attacking your opponent as a person and not their actual point or statements.
Tu quoque is "you also"- acting like you did nothing wrong by claiming the opponent did it too.
Arguably, if "you're always wrong, I'm allowed to be a hypocrite" was even a specific fallacy... what do you call making up fraud claims out of thin air while ignoring or even defending Trump's bald-faced attempts at voter suppression? ("Stop the Count" much?)

Now please, for the good of us all, fuck off with the fraud claims until you have significant hard evidence.

 

[tabzer]

You've accepted the claim that the election was "probably rigged," despite you being unaware of any evidence that the election was rigged. You are the one who doesn't care about finding the truth.

You want to quote me on that, so thay we can have access to context? I say thay because I am pretty sure it's getting to the point where it is undeniable.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

...no???
Ad hominem is "to the person"- the "nobody wants to be you"

He called me sad. I am less sad than ever.

 

[Plasmaster09]

You want to quote me on that, so thay we can have access to context? I say thay because I am pretty sure it's getting to the point where it is undeniable.

you literally have "we believe in election fraud" in your sig, linking to a website entirely composed of single-eyewitness claims or anecdotes (both very, very unreliable) that, even if it was actually all true (which it is demonstrably not), wouldn't even provide a THIRD of the victory margin

also, he called your ARGUMENT sad
which it is
because you were just using tu quoque back there as well, and poorly to boot

 

[tabzer]

Tu quoque is "you also"- acting like you did nothing wrong by claiming the opponent did it too.

Trump, nor I, participated in referenced cases.

 

[AmandaRose]

I find it funny how the right keep banging on about their right to freedom of speech then their beloved cult leader goes and does this.

Donald Trump has reportedly banned all mention of Richard Nixon in the White House.

Nixon was forced to resign the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

Mr Trump apparently subjected one adviser to an expletive-laden tirade and forbade them from bringing up the disgraced ex-president ever again.

CNN reported that it began with a casual conversation about whether Mr Trump might resign before 20 January.


Yep what happened to freedom of speach.

 

[tabzer]

you literally have "we believe in election fraud" in your sig, linking to a website entirely composed of single-eyewitness claims or anecdotes (both very, very unreliable) that, even if it was actually all true (which it is demonstrably not), wouldn't even provide a THIRD of the victory margin

also, he called your ARGUMENT sad
which it is
because you were just using tu quoque
back there as well, and poorly to boot

tu quoque

 

[Lacius]

You want to quote me on that, so thay we can have access to context?

Sure.

Every election, since JFK, has probably been rigged.

I am in the camp that thinks it is probably rigged

 

[Plasmaster09]

Trump, nor I, participated in referenced cases.

Well, we didn't blatantly try to (illegally and fraudulently) prevent votes from being counted.
You still have no reliable evidence of fraud, while we literally just have quotes and shit of Trump and his supporters chanting "stop the count" and actively protesting at vote-counting locations.

tu quoque

you do realize that just saying the words in Latin, not bothering to use it as a point of "this is the fallacy you are making" or anything, doesn't make you sound any smarter or your argument any more valid, right?
knowing what you're actually saying when you use Latin terms for logical fallacies is the difference between actually having a decent point and spouting meaningless "lorem ipsum" garbage in an attempt to look smarter.

 

[tabzer]

Sure.

Ok. So I thought this election was probably rigged, despite me disagreeing with you on the premise that there was no evidence--as I have always asserted the existence of evidence. Ignoring the fact that we are in the present where more information is becoming available, please quote the part where I said that the election was probably rigged despite evidence.

 

[Cryoraptor]

I guess 1000s

Ay up, first it was 1000, now it's thousands? Keep to the story mate.

And yes, in a country of 330 million people, it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that 1000 of them are brain dead enough to fabricate testimonies.

 

[tabzer]

Ay up, first it was 1000, now it's thousands? Keep to the story mate.

And yes, in a country of 330 million people, it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that 1000 of them are brain dead enough to fabricate testimonies.

Though Im fuxing around... Imagine a country that could have all of its citizens interested in politics. That might give politics some sort of reputability.

 

[Lacius]

despite me disagreeing with you on the premise that there was no evidence--as I have always asserted the existence of evidence.

No evidence has been presented that there was widespread election fraud. Asserting the existence of evidence when no evidence has been presented is part of how you don't care about truth. A proper skeptic cannot accept claims as true or probably true in the absence of evidence.

 

[tabzer]

No evidence has been presented that there was widespread election fraud. Asserting the existence of evidence when no evidence has been presented is part of how you don't care about truth. A proper skeptic cannot accept claims as true or probably true in the absence of evidence.

There's evidence. However, there is no compelling reason why I should believe you.

 

[Cryoraptor]

Ok. So I thought this election was probably rigged, despite me disagreeing with you on the premise that there was no evidence--as I have always asserted the existence of evidence. Ignoring the fact that we are in the present where more information is becoming available, please quote the part where I said that the election was probably rigged despite evidence.

You remind me of creationists; trying to ignore requests of hard evidence and trying but epically failing to 'prove' your view by using logic games. No matter how many logic games you try to play, you still can't solve the problem of there being no credible hard evidence to suggest widescale, coordinated election fraud in the 2020 elections. It doesn't matter if you think every election since JFK has been rigged and just by pure probability we should assume that Biden actually lost and let Trump wreck the place for 4 more years, that does fuck all to prove that it's actually happening.