4 ms·

Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? How exactly did you determine this? (to be clear I'm not suggesting he did, only questioning your methods

Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? How exactly did you determine this? (to be clear I'm not suggesting he did, only questioning your methods of determining truth). "Back when it was plausible to get to herd immunity with 60% of adults vaccinated". That was never possible with these series of vaccines which don't prevent transmission, don't give full protection, and don't last very long. It's frankly stunning to me someone would make such a statement at this point in time.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? Yes. > How exactly did you determine this? By waiting for all the people who did assert voter fraud to present their hard evidence in court. There wasn't any. It's like asking whether it's "factual" that Obama is a human man instead of a secret lizard person wearing an advanced nanotech disguise. I can't affirmatively prove the non-existence of something, but that doesn't mean it's less of a fact.
- mythrwy 5y ago
  You are claiming an article of faith as fact. It isn't. You can assert probabilities but you can't prove a negative. Appeal to ridicule doesn't change that.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't prove a negative -- the burden of proof is on the other party. By your reasoning, being unable to prove a negative means that, outside of maybe math, facts don't really exist. I can't prove that WW2 wasn't an elaborate hoax, I can't prove that Texas is a real state, I can't prove that babies aren't brought around by very stealthy storks. The point is, you already accept WW2 as factual -- or you certainly wouldn't object to someone presenting it as such on an internet forum -- despite it possibly being a shared worldwide hallucination, so you're not even being internally consistent.
    - mythrwy 5y ago
      The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. You again are appealing to ridicule. Once again, just to be clear, I'm not saying Trump won the 2020 election. Trump's claims he won for sure and "everyone knows it" are just as nonfactual and people who claim Trump actually won is a "fact" are also making preference based statements of faith, just as you and original poster are doing. Unless they have top secret proof they are not sharing which as you alluded to earlier, appears unlikely. What I'm taking about is the nature of "absolute fact" and "probability" and stating things as certain facts that are not certain facts. Also assessing the possibility or probability of events occurring. Here are statements I'd have no problem with: "No conclusive evidence has been presented that fraud tipped the scales in the 2020 election" "It appears extremely unlikely Trump actually won the 2020 election because the evidence thus far presented in court has not held up to scrutiny" Here is a statement I do have a problem with: "1/3 of people are so dumb they don't even believe the "fact" that the 2020 election was legitimate so XXX because facts don't matter to unwashed idiots" (which was the gist of the original post I took exception with).
      - Certhas 5y ago
        You are imposing arbitrary and extreme standards for the usage of the term fact. These standards neither reflect real world usage, nor do they reflect any sensible first principle definition. You also consistently conflate trust and faith. I have to trust a number of entities to come to the conclusion that this is a fact. Just like I have to trust a number of social entities to come to the conclusion that the existence of atoms is a fact. The point is that there are excellent reasons to trust these entities. Faith is trust without reason. That is _not_ at play here.
        mythrwy 5y ago
        No not at all. It's entirely within the realm of probability that an election was fraudulent enough to alter the outcome. That has happened in world history more then once. On the other hand it's not within the realm of reasonable possibility that Texas doesn't actually exist. These two scenarios are not comparable. It very simply is not a "fact" that Joe Biden won the election cleanly (nor the converse). It might be most probable but it is not "fact" and there are people who feel the evidence points to a different conclusion then you have arrived at. Perhaps they are wrong but the issue here is one of "fact" and determining "fact" in this case is a very large search space. At most (right now) we can say what evidence we see and what we believe is most probable, not beat our opponents over the head for how stupid they are for not seeing "facts". (this was my whole point). faith /fāTH/ noun 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
8note 5y ago
They reduce the likelihood of catching it, and reduce the likelihood of transmission when you get it. A herd immunity situation still involves individuals catching and spreading a disease, but the R value is below 1, so it fizzles out quickly. Have a node in the graph reduce both incoming and outgoing probability of transmission reducea the R value. The argument you can make is that covid's R value is so high that it doesn't matter how many people get vaccinated or catch covid, it will continue spreading, but "full protection" is irrelevant
- mythrwy 5y ago
  The "reduce likelihoods" would need real numbers to determine if the R value would be below 1 and thus fizzle. Hand waving doesn't show this and I feel it's unlikely given the amount vaccinated infection observed. We didn't know everything we do now, but near as I can tell herd immunity was never a realistic possibility. It was with for the foreseeable future as soon as it went multinational and became a management rather then elimination task.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> Is it "factual" Biden didn't win through voter fraud? Yes. > How exactly did you determine this? By waiting for all the people who did assert voter fraud to present their hard evidence in court. There wasn't any. It's like asking whether it's "factual" that Obama is a human man instead of a secret lizard person wearing an advanced nanotech disguise. I can't affirmatively prove the non-existence of something, but that doesn't mean it's less of a fact.

mythrwy 5y ago
You are claiming an article of faith as fact. It isn't. You can assert probabilities but you can't prove a negative. Appeal to ridicule doesn't change that.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  That's exactly what I'm saying. I can't prove a negative -- the burden of proof is on the other party. By your reasoning, being unable to prove a negative means that, outside of maybe math, facts don't really exist. I can't prove that WW2 wasn't an elaborate hoax, I can't prove that Texas is a real state, I can't prove that babies aren't brought around by very stealthy storks. The point is, you already accept WW2 as factual -- or you certainly wouldn't object to someone presenting it as such on an internet forum -- despite it possibly being a shared worldwide hallucination, so you're not even being internally consistent.
  - mythrwy 5y ago
    The probability Texas is a real state is very different then the probability fraud caused Trump to lose the 2020 election. You again are appealing to ridicule. Once again, just to be clear, I'm not saying Trump won the 2020 election. Trump's claims he won for sure and "everyone knows it" are just as nonfactual and people who claim Trump actually won is a "fact" are also making preference based statements of faith, just as you and original poster are doing. Unless they have top secret proof they are not sharing which as you alluded to earlier, appears unlikely. What I'm taking about is the nature of "absolute fact" and "probability" and stating things as certain facts that are not certain facts. Also assessing the possibility or probability of events occurring. Here are statements I'd have no problem with: "No conclusive evidence has been presented that fraud tipped the scales in the 2020 election" "It appears extremely unlikely Trump actually won the 2020 election because the evidence thus far presented in court has not held up to scrutiny" Here is a statement I do have a problem with: "1/3 of people are so dumb they don't even believe the "fact" that the 2020 election was legitimate so XXX because facts don't matter to unwashed idiots" (which was the gist of the original post I took exception with).
    - Certhas 5y ago
      You are imposing arbitrary and extreme standards for the usage of the term fact. These standards neither reflect real world usage, nor do they reflect any sensible first principle definition. You also consistently conflate trust and faith. I have to trust a number of entities to come to the conclusion that this is a fact. Just like I have to trust a number of social entities to come to the conclusion that the existence of atoms is a fact. The point is that there are excellent reasons to trust these entities. Faith is trust without reason. That is _not_ at play here.
      - mythrwy 5y ago
        No not at all. It's entirely within the realm of probability that an election was fraudulent enough to alter the outcome. That has happened in world history more then once. On the other hand it's not within the realm of reasonable possibility that Texas doesn't actually exist. These two scenarios are not comparable. It very simply is not a "fact" that Joe Biden won the election cleanly (nor the converse). It might be most probable but it is not "fact" and there are people who feel the evidence points to a different conclusion then you have arrived at. Perhaps they are wrong but the issue here is one of "fact" and determining "fact" in this case is a very large search space. At most (right now) we can say what evidence we see and what we believe is most probable, not beat our opponents over the head for how stupid they are for not seeing "facts". (this was my whole point). faith /fāTH/ noun 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

8note 5y ago

They reduce the likelihood of catching it, and reduce the likelihood of transmission when you get it. A herd immunity situation still involves individuals catching and spreading a disease, but the R value is below 1, so it fizzles out quickly. Have a node in the graph reduce both incoming and outgoing probability of transmission reducea the R value. The argument you can make is that covid's R value is so high that it doesn't matter how many people get vaccinated or catch covid, it will continue spreading, but "full protection" is irrelevant

mythrwy 5y ago
The "reduce likelihoods" would need real numbers to determine if the R value would be below 1 and thus fizzle. Hand waving doesn't show this and I feel it's unlikely given the amount vaccinated infection observed. We didn't know everything we do now, but near as I can tell herd immunity was never a realistic possibility. It was with for the foreseeable future as soon as it went multinational and became a management rather then elimination task.