4 ms·

I do not trust an accountant who makes blatant accounting mistakes. I do not trust the testimony of someone who has falsified evidence, or processed it incorre

I do not trust an accountant who makes blatant accounting mistakes. I do not trust the testimony of someone who has falsified evidence, or processed it incorrectly. Neither of those are an ad hominem attack of a factual claim. They show that someone is incapable or unwilling to provide evidence that should be considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if the evidence presented makes demonstrably false claims, then we're done with that evidence, and should frown upon the person who presented it. They should lose credibility. If you want to find another accountant, offer up someone else's testimony, show an untainted evidentiary chain, in support of a factual claim, I will gladly consider it. I am not either "Group" in your scenario, by the way. I accept that the Constitution of the United States enacts Laws, and Checks and Balances. I accept that we have Courts to make determinations of fact. We are a nation of laws. I am not in and of myself rejecting claims, and satisfied with that as the conclusion of my interest in the matter. I am informing you, I will accept the outcomes of the courts. I accepted them when I disagreed with their outcomes in the past, and I expect others to do likewise. Not that I think each outcome is Just, but that the long arm of history bends towards Justice. When I am upset enough, I petition my representatives to change the law, or to impeach officers of government. We are a nation of laws. WHY would Georgia order a forensic analysis of counting machines, when a hand recount has agreed, within a reasonable degree? It's nonsense. Is there a paper trail for voting machines? Yes. Voters are responsible for checking the paper record. The paper record has been checked against the electronic record. Aren't we done?

disgrunt 6y ago
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if the evidence presented makes demonstrably false claims, then we're done with that evidence, and should frown upon the person who presented it. In a court of law, all claims and evidence are evaluated on their own merits. election/voter fraud as a claim is hardly extraordinary. People are charged and convicted of such crimes every election cycle. In a civil matter, a case is decided based on the preponderance of the evidence, not on the extraordinary nature of it. I, too, will accept the outcome of the courts. What other recourse is there? But that doesn't mean the conversation is over. You can walk away. You can't shut people up. Well, you can try, and some actively are as we speak, but I vehemently oppose such efforts.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  > all claims and evidence are evaluated on their own merits That is demonstrably not true. There is a legal definition of what an expert witness is, and their testimony has more weight. > election/voter fraud as a claim is hardly extraordinary. On the scale being claimed, enough to overturn multiple States' General Elections, yes it, is an extraordinary claim. > People are charged and convicted of such crimes every election cycle No, people are not "charged and convicted" of ELECTION FRAUD every election cycle. Some small number of people have been convicted of VOTER FRAUD. Please do not conflate the two, as the scope of their impact is completely different. > You can't shut people up. I literally ASKED why people are still raising one specific objection. No one has attempted an actual defense of that specific objection. They have moved the goalposts to other objections. It is unreasonable to bring up objections to Dominion voting machines in Georgia in the 2020 election. Anyone who does so should shut the hell up, or offer new evidence.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy for Aristotelian argumentation. For common-law legal fact-finding, calling the source's reputation into question is extremely fair. Aristotelian argumentation is grounded on premises both sides can accept; in legal examination, people lie and distort all the time.

disgrunt 6y ago

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if the evidence presented makes demonstrably false claims, then we're done with that evidence, and should frown upon the person who presented it. In a court of law, all claims and evidence are evaluated on their own merits. election/voter fraud as a claim is hardly extraordinary. People are charged and convicted of such crimes every election cycle. In a civil matter, a case is decided based on the preponderance of the evidence, not on the extraordinary nature of it. I, too, will accept the outcome of the courts. What other recourse is there? But that doesn't mean the conversation is over. You can walk away. You can't shut people up. Well, you can try, and some actively are as we speak, but I vehemently oppose such efforts.

VikingCoder 6y ago
> all claims and evidence are evaluated on their own merits That is demonstrably not true. There is a legal definition of what an expert witness is, and their testimony has more weight. > election/voter fraud as a claim is hardly extraordinary. On the scale being claimed, enough to overturn multiple States' General Elections, yes it, is an extraordinary claim. > People are charged and convicted of such crimes every election cycle No, people are not "charged and convicted" of ELECTION FRAUD every election cycle. Some small number of people have been convicted of VOTER FRAUD. Please do not conflate the two, as the scope of their impact is completely different. > You can't shut people up. I literally ASKED why people are still raising one specific objection. No one has attempted an actual defense of that specific objection. They have moved the goalposts to other objections. It is unreasonable to bring up objections to Dominion voting machines in Georgia in the 2020 election. Anyone who does so should shut the hell up, or offer new evidence.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy for Aristotelian argumentation. For common-law legal fact-finding, calling the source's reputation into question is extremely fair. Aristotelian argumentation is grounded on premises both sides can accept; in legal examination, people lie and distort all the time.