- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: On a scale of 1-10 how confident are you that this Russia story
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:46 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 3/29/17 at 9:46 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
My original skepticism was based on Wikileaks actually working independently of the Russkies. I am coming to the belief that they are actually colluding with them on the what/when to release stuff.
I think they are colluding too, but I'm not convinced WL is some puppet of Putin. I think they have a mutual interest in undermining some American institutions, but likely for very different reasons.
0
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:01 am to Pettifogger
quote:
What evidence do you have that the IC doesn't have which gives you 100% confidence?
quote:
I'm sure the IC has the entire body of evidence I have, and more.
The IC said in their 25 page unclassified intelligence report (thus, also in their classified intelligence report) they don't have anything but circumstantial evidence that the Russians tried to influence the election.
That's why the IC said in their unclassified report that people should not interpret their "high confidence" the Russians tried to influence the election as a fact that the Russians did try to influence the election.
In fact, the IC said they "might be wrong".
Now, what evidence do you have which makes you 100% certain that the Russians did try to influence the election when the IC doesn't have the evidence to make them 100% certain the Russians tried to influence the election?
If you provide me with that evidence then I will gladly change my mind and agree with you.
quote:
As to why they haven't reached the same conclusion as me, I don't know, and I probably don't care, as they likely do agree with me anyway.
The IC doesn't agree with you and hasn't reached the same conclusion as you because, unlike you, they are basing their conclusion on actual evidence.
quote:
I'm amused at your propping up of the IC (which I believe you disparage) simply so you can use them as an appeal to authority, though.
Meh, I am just quoting the IC's actual words which were in their 25 page unclassified report.
That's not appealing to authority.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 10:11 am
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:14 am to DawgfaninCa
I only have circumstantial evidence, too.
I'm 100% confident because a) I find the circumstantial evidence compelling b) russo-American affairs and Putin are a hobby of mine and my "findings" align well with my beliefs about the status of our relationship and Putin's worldview and c) I don't have to account to anyone. I have no professional responsibility requiring me to caveat my belief on this.
While I'd be happy to talk to you as to why I'm convinced Russia sought to influence our election, I have no obligation to convince you of my position. I'm not being snarky when I say that the IC not having 100% confidence is pretty irrelevant to me. I just don't care that a body is largely, but not entirely, convinced.
All that said, if you have information you think counters my position (other than the IC not willing to express 100% confidence), I'd gladly listen to it, and I'd even be open to changing my position if it was compelling. But I don't think it exists, and hence, my confidence remains.
I'm 100% confident because a) I find the circumstantial evidence compelling b) russo-American affairs and Putin are a hobby of mine and my "findings" align well with my beliefs about the status of our relationship and Putin's worldview and c) I don't have to account to anyone. I have no professional responsibility requiring me to caveat my belief on this.
While I'd be happy to talk to you as to why I'm convinced Russia sought to influence our election, I have no obligation to convince you of my position. I'm not being snarky when I say that the IC not having 100% confidence is pretty irrelevant to me. I just don't care that a body is largely, but not entirely, convinced.
All that said, if you have information you think counters my position (other than the IC not willing to express 100% confidence), I'd gladly listen to it, and I'd even be open to changing my position if it was compelling. But I don't think it exists, and hence, my confidence remains.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:16 am to goldennugget
10
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:17 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
The IC doesn't agree with you and hasn't reached the same conclusion as you because, unlike you, they are basing their conclusion on actual evidence.
The IC, you admit, thinks my underlying position (Russia sought to influence our election) is likely accurate. As to why they're caveating that position, I have no idea.
quote:
That's not appealing to authority.
Sure it is. You're not opposing my position based on the content of the report, you're opposing my position based on them being 80% confident vs. me being 100% confident. You're not relying (at least yet) on any basis for their lessened confidence, just on the fact that an authoritative body (the IC) takes a different position.
It's a total appeal to authority. Now, that doesn't mean you can't change that by raising whatever underlying evidence the IC uses to combat my position, which I've already invited you to do if you'd like.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:26 am to goldennugget
15
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:42 am to Pettifogger
quote:
I only have circumstantial evidence, too.
I'm 100% confident because a) I find the circumstantial evidence compelling
Do you have some circumstantial evidence that the IC doesn't have or are you basing your 100% confidence on the same circumstantial evidence that the IC based their conclusion on?
quote:
b) russo-American affairs and Putin are a hobby of mine and my "findings" align well with my beliefs about the status of our relationship and Putin's worldview and c) I don't have to account to anyone. I have no professional responsibility requiring me to caveat my belief on this.
So you are basing your conclusion on your beliefs not on any actual or circumstantial evidence you have that the IC doesn't have.
quote:
While I'd be happy to talk to you as to why I'm convinced Russia sought to influence our election, I have no obligation to convince you of my position. I'm not being snarky when I say that the IC not having 100% confidence is pretty irrelevant to me. I just don't care that a body is largely, but not entirely, convinced.
All that said, if you have information you think counters my position (other than the IC not willing to express 100% confidence), I'd gladly listen to it, and I'd even be open to changing my position if it was compelling. But I don't think it exists, and hence, my confidence remains.
You are the one who opened your big mouth and said you are 100% sure that the Russians tried to influence the election.
I just reminded you the IC said in their 25 page unclassified report that, based on the evidence they have, the IC can not say with 100% certainty the Russians tried to influence the election and that the IC "might be wrong".
Unlike you, I do not let my own biased beliefs affect my conclusion. I let the evidence presented affect my conclusion.
The evidence that the IC has only resulted in the IC being "highly confident" not "100% confident" that the Russians tried to influence the election.
Until you produce additional evidence in support of your belief, I can only go by the evidence the IC has and that's not enough evidence for the IC to be able to be 100% confident that the Russians tried to influence the election.
At least the IC admits that they "might be wrong".
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:56 am to Pettifogger
quote:
The IC doesn't agree with you and hasn't reached the same conclusion as you because, unlike you, they are basing their conclusion on actual evidence.
quote:
The IC, you admit, thinks my underlying position (Russia sought to influence our election) is likely accurate. As to why they're caveating that position, I have no idea.
I'll take a wild guess and say the IC took their position because they do not have any actual evidence for the IC to have 100% confidence that the Russians tried to influence the election.
quote:
That's not appealing to authority.
quote:
Sure it is. You're not opposing my position based on the content of the report, you're opposing my position based on them being 80% confident vs. me being 100% confident. You're not relying (at least yet) on any basis for their lessened confidence, just on the fact that an authoritative body (the IC) takes a different position.
It's a total appeal to authority.
bullshite.
I'm basing my opposition to your position on the circumstantial evidence the IC presented in their 25 page unclassified report.
quote:
Now, that doesn't mean you can't change that by raising whatever underlying evidence the IC uses to combat my position, which I've already invited you to do if you'd like.
You are the one who claims you are 100% certain without presenting any evidence that 100% proves the Russians tried to influence the election.
The burden of proof that you are correct is on you. The burden of proof is not on me to prove you are incorrect.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:58 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
So you are basing your conclusion on your beliefs not on any actual or circumstantial evidence you have that the IC doesn't have.
No, I'm basing it on a combination of circumstantial evidence and my beliefs. I've acknowledged that since we started discussing this subject.
quote:
You are the one who opened your big mouth and said you are 100% sure that the Russians tried to influence the election.
Haha, never mind.
I always get into these conversations with you, being amicable and assuming you intend to conduct yourself like a reasonable person. And then, of course, you reveal your batshit crazy nature when someone backs you into a corner. Rather than present whatever evidence you have to discredit my position, which I invited you to do, you get your feelings hurt because I've called out your fallacy and lash out like a lunatic.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:58 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
The burden of proof that you are correct is on you. The burden of proof is not on me to prove you are incorrect.
like when Trump tweets some b.s and then challenges the Congress to look into it.
I love that they told him to present his evidence and he had NOTHING.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:59 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
I'm basing my opposition to your position on the circumstantial evidence the IC presented in their 25 page unclassified report.
Haha no you're not, you just admitted assuming they had a good reason.
You're assuming because they're the IC. You assume the IC is authoritative. It's a blatant appeal to authority.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:01 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
You are the one who claims you are 100% certain without presenting any evidence that 100% proves the Russians tried to influence the election.
I'm 100% confident, yes. I have no burden of proof whatsoever.
This is going to annoy the shite out of you, and I love it.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:09 am to Pettifogger
quote:
You are the one who claims you are 100% certain without presenting any evidence that 100% proves the Russians tried to influence the election.
quote:
I'm 100% confident, yes. I have no burden of proof whatsoever.
This is going to annoy the shite out of you, and I love it.
Meh, it doesn't annoy the shite out of me.
It gives me great pleasure that you just admitted you have absolutely no evidence on which to base your 100% confidence belief.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:18 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
It gives me great pleasure that you just admitted you have absolutely no evidence on which to base your 100% confidence belief.
Add dishonesty to delusional.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:20 am to Pettifogger
quote:
I'm basing my opposition to your position on the circumstantial evidence the IC presented in their 25 page unclassified report.
quote:
Haha no you're not, you just admitted assuming they had a good reason.
Meh, the only thing I admitted is that the IC based their conclusion on the circumstantial evidence they had.
quote:
You're assuming because they're the IC. You assume the IC is authoritative. It's a blatant appeal to authority.
All I did was remind you the IC isn't 100% confident that the Russians tried to influence the election and that they admitted they "might be wrong" about the Russians trying to influence the election.
It is people like you who are appealing to authority by acting like the IC concluded it's a 100% certainty that the Russians tried to influence the election.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:21 am to goldennugget
There is no Russian story if Hillary does not set up her own private server & then lie about it, under oath, time & time again all during the general election.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:22 am to tigersbh
So the DOJ and FBI are investigating all these ties (or potential ties) at the behest of the Democrats?
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:23 am to Pettifogger
quote:
It gives me great pleasure that you just admitted you have absolutely no evidence on which to base your 100% confidence belief.
quote:
Add dishonesty to delusional.
Okay.
You are dishonest as well as delusional.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:26 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
It is people like you who are appealing to authority by acting like the IC concluded it's a 100% certainty that the Russians tried to influence the election.
Haha, what on earth are you talking about? You're just blatantly lying now.
You picked a fight with me because I took a position you construed as not being entirely supportive of Trump. I never "argued" in favor of my 100% position at all. I have no burden of proof as to why I'm 100% confident in my position. Nonetheless, you're miffed because your argument isn't going to plan, so now you're willing to fabricate shite to stay in this discussion. It's pathetic.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 11:34 am to goldennugget
20
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News