The biggest threat to democracy is "millions of voters"

Whatever you say

But again: "why should anyone hold themselves to a higher standard than their adversaries particularly when already highly disadvantaged?"

Quit dodging.

You're being deliberately evasive. You're trying to turn a purely factual question of "is there any evidence of electoral fraud?" into a philosophical or spiritual question about the nature of 'truth'. As if the differnece between truth and lies is just a technical or minor issue.

On many issues there are shades of grey. Where the answer isn't binary, and requires a great deal of nuance. Election fraud is not one of them. Either it happened or it didn't - those are the only two possibilities.

If you were able to produce clear and compelling evidence that the election was stolen I would wholeheartedly agree that it was. But neither you or anyone else has been able to provide any actual evidence of anything.

So I'll ask again, what is your evidential basis for claiming the election was stolen? It's you that has repeatedly dodged that question. It's not a trick question. I am very open to changing my mind if you can provide the evidence. The floor is open for you to do so. So go on, take that opportunity.

To answer your question, I'm not asking you to hold Trump to a higher standard than his adversaries or even to a particularly high standard generally. I'm asking you to hold him to just any form of standard at all. And that means when he makes outlandish and unevidenced and often demonstrably false factual assertions, such as the election being stolen, that you don't believe him until he is able to back up those claims with even the slightest bit of evidence.

You're being deliberately evasive. You're trying to turn a purely factual question of "is there any evidence of electoral fraud?" into a philosophical or spiritual question about the nature of 'truth'. As if the differnece between truth and lies is just a technical or minor issue.

On many issues there are shades of grey. Where the answer isn't binary, and requires a great deal of nuance. Election fraud is not one of them. Either it happened or it didn't - those are the only two possibilities.

If you were able to produce clear and compelling evidence that the election was stolen I would wholeheartedly agree that it was. But neither you or anyone else has been able to provide any actual evidence of anything.

So I'll ask again, what is your evidential basis for claiming the election was stolen? It's you that has repeatedly dodged that question. It's not a trick question. I am very open to changing my mind if you can provide the evidence. The floor is open for you to do so. So go on, take that opportunity.

To answer your question, I'm not asking you to hold Trump to a higher standard than his adversaries or even to a particularly high standard generally. I'm asking you to hold him to just any form of standard at all. And that means when he makes outlandish and unevidenced and often demonstrably false factual assertions, such as the election being stolen, that you don't believe him until he is able to back up those claims with even the slightest bit of evidence.

They do this all the time when pressed on their beliefs. Something about there being 'epistemological reasons' to justify them believing whatever they want, basically. 😂 It derails every discussion like this. It doesn't matter if something can be supported by evidence, all that matters is whether it conviniently ties into their pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. Electoral fraud supports their pre-existing beliefs and prejudices, so they'll believe it regardless of evidence. I've had similar such discussions on topics like feminism, sexuality, health, etc.

I am providing context, without which such discussion is mostly just hypothetical. We are living in a post truth era. (That's my "evidence") As such "lies" become inevitable regardless of what we may think about it . This is what happens when you give the vote to sub optimal people: you inevitably cater to the lowest common denominator hence left wing parties promising free ****. People o the left have exploited this dumb creation for decades but act outraged when we take a leaf from their book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA
And
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE

I am holding Trump to a "standard" if he lies about something I care about I will be the first to speak up on it. Ironically trump is still far more honest than most politicians...

How droll. You've yet to tell me about a policy area in which you've recently changed your mind "BecAUSe Of tHE EvIdEncE!"...

A- But that's not evidence or anything close to it. It's laughable that it's your basis for making a claim of electoral fraud.

1: You started by claiming that there was evidence of electoral fraud,

2: then you said there wasn't evidence but merely hoped there would be

3- then you said you don't care if its true or not because all politicians lie,
4-now you seem to be saying that the fact some polticians lie is evidence of mass electoral fraud.

B- If someone on the far left was making the sort of claims you're making, using the same sort of 'reasoning' (if one could even call it that), you'd laugh them out the place and justifiably so. But here you are doing it.

C: That's the danger of being in a cult, which you are. You're a fiercely intelligent guy but the cult you are in has caused you to believe and argue that black is white, grass is blue and the sky is purple.

D: I don't care if you're Trump, Blair, Corbyn, Bush, Clinton or whoever. If you lie you should be called out for it and indeed I do call them out.

E: You are basically saying that Trump telling complete lies is not only fine but actively a good thing if it's politically convenient.

F: And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with left wing parties offering public services free at the point of use - it's just more diversion tactics.

H: I don't say this lightly, and I do respect you to a point, but on years on TSR I have almost never seen reasoning as shoddy and illogical as yours in this thread. Often people who argue that way are a bit dim, but you're clearly not. To the point I start to wonder whether you are actually just trolling.

Despite that, I do hope you have a good new year.

On plenty of things actually. Most recently lockdown and also student fees I have significantly changed my mind on based on the evidence. Also om the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

Being willing to change your mind when the evidence shows you were previously incorrect is a sign of strength and security. You should try it 😉.

A- Where have I said it was?

1: where did I say that?
2:' no I didn't. Again, where?
3: kinda. But that doesn't quite do it justice. See below
4: what? Again, no.

What I am saying is the following:

Our establishment which includes all sorts of institutional power including secret services, academics, big tech, the media, etc et al all promote willingly or otherwise lies. Therefore we are in a post truth society. What does that mean? Well ask Socrates, Christ and more recently Julian Assange.

Fact is that power doesn't give two ***** about the truth and if you want to change the system you need power.

B- . Some OG lefties would agree with me on the nature of our establishment eg Glenn greenwald, whilst he would strongly disagree with me politically understands what's going on.

C: no, because as you have previously noted, I have not made any definitive claims about such things. Nor again do I agree with trump on everything and am quite happy pointing out what I disagree with him on. If you want to call being part of a collective with a shared agenda and leadership a "cult" then have at it.

D: how marvelous for you. But you are a spectator.

E- lying is wrong. But it may be a necessary evil and justified at times yes. Basically Machiavelli was right.

F: if you say so...

H: basically you need to understand about power relations and human nature. Read some Machiavelli, Robert Greene, and some ancient philosophy.





And lastly

How droll. You've yet to tell me about a policy area in which you've recently changed your mind "BecAUSe Of tHE EvIdEncE!"...

Fact is you live in a liberal society, with liberal institutions that promote liberal values that oh so coincidentally happen to match your own

Your empirical knowledge of the world is next to useless because you have no understanding of human nature or power relations and the wider implications thereof.

It's a bit like It's a bit depressing to have someone argue to you that black is white on the basis that we live in a 'post truth world'.

Numerous times have I changed my belief when presented with evidence. Just recently, I was reading articles on the relationship between weed consumption and mental illness. I did not think this existed until then, mostly due to prejudice surrounding drugs, but I have now changed my mind.

People who spend their life studying the world and trying to understand it better, as opposed to relying on prejudice and a holy book, turn out to be more liberal than those who don't? Jeez, I wonder why.

Simply LOL at "no understanding of human nature or power relations and the wider implications thereof".

With respect a lot of this seems to be obfuscation and provarication.

I'm all too happy to have debates about the establishment, power structures and relations, the strengths and weaknesses of Trump and whatever else. There will likely be points on which I agree with you.

But none of that is relevant at all to the issue of electoral fraud. It's a purely factual matter - either it happened or it didn't. And unless you are able to provide actual credible evidence that it did happen, then the only conclusion that can be reached by a person seeking out truth is that it did not. And that's pretty much where we are.

It's a bit like someone coming and claiming 'that man took my laptop'. It's a binary issue - either he did or didnt take it. Going on about, or trying to contextualise it in the issue of power structures and relations may well be interesting, but it has no bearing on whether the guy actually did take the laptop or not. It's the same principle here.

I don't have an issue with people supporting Trump. What I have an issue with is people knowingly lying and pushing conspiracy theories on the basis of no actual evidence simply because it is politically convenient/the dear leader told them to.

So again, it comes down to this. Unless you have actual evidence of electoral fraud that stands up to scrutiny, it didn't happen. I don't know what else there is to say. It's a bit depressing to have someone argue to you that black is white on the basis that we live in a 'post truth world'.

I mean kudos fur changing your mind at least, personally I did not need a peer reviewed study to tel me that. I mean your argument is simply wrong because I started out as a liberal searching for answers and have concluded that religious traditionalism/ conservativism provides the best answers for a healthy and functioning society. If I was not open minded I would be a liberal spouting the same stuff as you.

You can lol all you want, this is a liberal blindspot which mark my words will be their undoing, particularly in the realm of international relations.

Of course you don't, because you're willing to believe something without evidence. It's not surprising that you've turned to religious traditionalism / conservatism for answers since these aren't predated on evidence and logic. Being open minded is great and all, but what also matters are the standards you use to base your beliefs on which, in your case, are extremely poor.

Logic, reason, evidence and critical thinking have been the undoing of religious traditionalism and conservatism ever since the Enlightenment.

Even once strictly conservative countries like Saudi Arabia are becoming more liberal with each generation.

I will choose practicality/ pragmatism over empiricism. If a tree falls down in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? As an empiricist you can't be sure. Whilst empiricism/ rationalism is useful for certain endeavours particularly science and maths, it does not provide all the answers you think it does.

Lol nope.

Again, there is no inevitable march towards "progress".

'If a tree falls in the forest' is a philosophical question which empiricism / rationalism plays a roll in answering. It's a question which entirely focuses on what we define 'sound' as. In a sense it isn't meant to have an answer, it's open ended

. Can you give an example of an actual important issue that practicality / pragmatism provides an answer to where empiricism can not?

The trend has been in motion for centuries. Certain events may reverse liberalism and enlightenment philosophies in parts of the world, but overall the world is moving in the same direction.

If something makes a noise it is a "sound" even if no one is there to hear it. This is obvious. I have already provided some, the issue of Hunan nature, how power works, another pertinent issue being corrupt/ ideological institutions and the nature of "spin" or framing of an issue to suit agendas.

No. History is cyclical not teleogical. Another weakness and shortsight of liberalism. Observe the treatment of JK Rowling, with her even getting death threats from people who disagree with her pointing out basic biology. have already pointed out how "hate speech"is essentially blasphemy now. Nothing has changed really, we've just found more inventive ways of doing what we've always done. Eg using drones to kill people instead of axes and swords. How civilised!

Depends how you define the word "sound", though. That's the whole point of the question. But regardless, this is off topic.

All the things you've listed can be investigated empirically, especially the final one regarding spin. Previous topics that have been mentioned in this thread, such as "Was there election fraud?" and "Does religious traditionalism / conservatism create the healthiest and best functioning societies?", can also be answered empirically.

Yes. Over the last couple of centuries the world has gradually become a much more liberal place, particularly in Europe, North America and South America. There's absolutely no denying that; look at how differently we treat women and minority groups, how many more democracies there are, how less prevalent religious is, etc.

But, sure, that's clearly all about to change because some idiots sent JK Rowling death threats. Clearly that's never happened before.