4 ms·

> Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. "Who wrote X-Agent

> Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. "Who wrote X-Agent?" "It was definitely Russians" is not a valid answer, either. An indictment is not evidence. It's an accusation. Show the evidence, let it be examined, cross-examined, etc. No, spooks' testimony is not credible by itself, not after they repeatedly lied under oath, to both congress and the public. > "Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? " "geopolitically" not to nitpick, but you probably mean plain "politically" Not necessarily. Clinton was already cosy with the Russians as State Secretary. Trump was an unknown quantity. Asserting anything else is a retcon. > "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. Ok, I think it's clear that there's no more fruitful exchange to happen on this topic. I tried to demonstrate that the evidence must be extraordinary and that it does not rise to that level. You disagree. You tried to demonstrate to me that the evidence is extraordinary. I disagree. Know that I'll read your reply, and absorb it, and think on it, but likely won't answer. Let us amicably agree to disagree on this.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. You're absolutely correct, but based on the weight of the evidence we have, we can find a most likely explanation. You've previously stated that all explanations bare equally likely, but that's not true. Bayesian reasoning allows us to look at various pieces of evidence and priors and weigh them, even when all are individually of dubious use. It's clear you don't want to answer any of those questions. They're simpler questions, my assumption here, again based on the weight of the evidence is that you're avoiding answering them because they demonstrate that Russia being responsible is the most likely answer. As another user mentions, you're showing lots of examples of motivated reasoning, and that's unfortunate. Even more so that you're then projecting these accusations upon me. Hopefully your inability to engage with the substance of what I've presented will demonstrate that to any other readers. > You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. Yes and, this is a valid rhetorical act when, for example suggesting the abstract idea one is discussing. > The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. That's not an accusation I made. Nor did any one else in this thread. And I'd agree that it is less likely than what I'm actually suggesting, which is that there wasn't collusion per say, but simply mutually beneficial actions. This is what is supported by the weight of the evidence and claimed in government reports, for example. That Russia hacked and leaked DNC data, to the benefit of the trump campaign and Russia itself, obviously. I'm unclear why you feel it necessary to inflate the accusations made to something less likely. This feels very motte-and-bailey, although I can't tell if it was intentional or a subconscious way to protect your preconception.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. You're absolutely correct, but based on the weight of the evidence we have, we can find a most likely explanation. You've previously stated that all explanations bare equally likely, but that's not true. Bayesian reasoning allows us to look at various pieces of evidence and priors and weigh them, even when all are individually of dubious use. It's clear you don't want to answer any of those questions. They're simpler questions, my assumption here, again based on the weight of the evidence is that you're avoiding answering them because they demonstrate that Russia being responsible is the most likely answer. As another user mentions, you're showing lots of examples of motivated reasoning, and that's unfortunate. Even more so that you're then projecting these accusations upon me. Hopefully your inability to engage with the substance of what I've presented will demonstrate that to any other readers. > You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. Yes and, this is a valid rhetorical act when, for example suggesting the abstract idea one is discussing. > The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. That's not an accusation I made. Nor did any one else in this thread. And I'd agree that it is less likely than what I'm actually suggesting, which is that there wasn't collusion per say, but simply mutually beneficial actions. This is what is supported by the weight of the evidence and claimed in government reports, for example. That Russia hacked and leaked DNC data, to the benefit of the trump campaign and Russia itself, obviously. I'm unclear why you feel it necessary to inflate the accusations made to something less likely. This feels very motte-and-bailey, although I can't tell if it was intentional or a subconscious way to protect your preconception.