Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:41 pm https://hereistheevidence.com

don't hold yer breathe that any of the anti-fraudists will even click on the link

You were right.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:43 pm I need somebody who knows what "evidence" means...or at least somebody who can read.

The person who knows what "evidence" means (me) is asking the person who doesn't (you) these questions:

Why does "the evidence" require explanation?
What is it that you insist OUGHT to be done in the event that all evidence is true?
What are you trying to achieve?

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:23 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:41 pm The evidence the Left has been saying "doesn't exist" for the theft of the election.

It's aaaaaalll here. Have fun.

https://hereistheevidence.com

Why do you continue to call it "evidence" if multiple courts in multiple states have dismissed it as such?

Are you suggesting that there is a nation-wide conspiracy in the justice system?

It isn’t evidence.

IC

You posted your link at 10:41 AM CDT. By 2:23 PM CDT I had read and digested all I could stand of your link. Where’s your evidence that I didn’t even try?

Evidence is proof, not something to be proved.

Crowdsourcing isn’t evidence.

Phrases in place of complete statements aren’t evidence.

Statements are not evidence just because they are claimed to be evidence.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:44 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:41 pm https://hereistheevidence.com

don't hold yer breathe that any of the anti-fraudists will even click on the link

You were right.

I ain't happy about it

If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent?

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:06 pm If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent?

A person who refuses to believe cancer is real isn't an "anti-cancerist." He hasn't actually prevented any cancer; he's just prevented himself from knowing of any. And a person who believes there's cancer isn't a "pro-cancerist," or "cancerist." He's a realist.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:06 pm If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent?

yeah, guy, whatever

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:06 pm If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent?

A person who refuses to believe cancer is real isn't an "anti-cancerist." He hasn't actually prevented any cancer; he's just prevented himself from knowing of any. And a person who believes there's cancer isn't a "pro-cancerist," or "cancerist." He's a realist.

I believe “anti-fraudist” was your description. I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:54 pm I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.

Skepticism is fine. It's something we all should have. Especially when we're told that the people's choice has been Joe Biden.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:35 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:54 pm I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.

Skepticism is fine. It's something we all should have. Especially when we're told that the people's choice has been Joe Biden.

I foisted up anti-fraudist, not mannie, and -- yeah -- skeptic is better

there are skeptics who say an election wasn't stolen; there are skeptics who say a houseplant couldn't have won the election

as aside: smokin' joe knew/knows nuthin' about the theft (assumin' there was a theft)...he actually believes he won

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:55 am as aside: smokin' joe knew/knows nuthin' about the theft (assumin' there was a theft)...he actually believes he won

I don't know whether or not that will turn out to be true. Smokin' Joe has a long and very corrupt history with the Democrats, and is definitely an insider on their misdeeds...or has been. But in his present mental condition, I don't think the Dems would trust him with anything, so you're probably right...they've probably convinced him he won, and he probably believes it.

But God bless Texas.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:35 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:54 pm I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.

Skepticism is fine. It's something we all should have. Especially when we're told that the people's choice has been Joe Biden.

I foisted up anti-fraudist, not mannie, and -- yeah -- skeptic is better

there are skeptics who say an election wasn't stolen; there are skeptics who say a houseplant couldn't have won the election

as aside: smokin' joe knew/knows nuthin' about the theft (assumin' there was a theft)...he actually believes he won

You are a great and honorable man.

(Not Joking)

But God bless Texas.

and the other 14 (I think) who've joined with texas in the suit (includin' my own)

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:01 am But God bless Texas.

and the other 14 (I think) who've joined with texas in the suit (includin' my own)

17 now, I heard. But good for the Bayou Boys.

They should. Any cheating obviously dilutes the impact of every vote in the country.