Was There A Server That Was Seized In Germany In The 2020 Election? Revisited 2024.

[jamil]

Not by your definition. You set such a high standard.

Extrapolating the results of past discussions, I suspect not.

 

[Ingomike]

Extrapolate doesn’t mean “to toss out”.

That is true, it doesn’t mean toss out. After I toss out the bacon vote, extrapolation occurs when I make the seven votes yes or no equal 100%…

 

[jamil]

That is true, it doesn’t mean toss out. After I toss out the bacon vote, extrapolation occurs when I make the seven votes yes or no equal 100%…

First, that’s not extrapolation either, unless you bend the definition unrecognizably. Second, you’re the one that gave the “I don’t know” answer as an option. But I guess when 75% of the respondents don’t agree with the answer you want, you think that eliminating it will make you right.

 

[jamil]

As of now, 19 respondents voted reasonably.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That is true, it doesn’t mean toss out. After I toss out the bacon vote, extrapolation occurs when I make the seven votes yes or no equal 100%…

7 is a statistically insignificant sample size from which to draw a conclusion though, don't you agree?

 

[jamil]

7 is a statistically insignificant sample size from which to draw a conclusion though, don't you agree?

It’s only statistically insignificant if it disagrees with him. He might say, well those 19 people who said they didn’t know are statistically insignificant. But. I mean it’s an INGO poll. Is it even significant, let alone statistically.

Mike thought that he would post a poll and depend on kindred results to feel some kind of win. But 75% didn’t feel like the reasons to believe either way are very strong. So that’s not the win he was hoping for.

 

[KG1]

What can we extrapolate from this thread?

 

[foszoe]

What can we extrapolate from this thread?

Honey Love Bras

 

[Rebel Jack]

As of now, 19 respondents voted reasonably.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I literally just voted for bacon. I don’t know how “reasonable” I would consider that. YMMV.

 

[Ingomike]

First, that’s not extrapolation either, unless you bend the definition unrecognizably.

You need to look up the definition of the word. Theses definitions are precisely what I did. Look it up, and lay off the know it all routine…


“to form an opinion or to make an estimate about something from known facts“

Extrapolate Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

EXTRAPOLATE meaning: to form an opinion or to make an estimate about something from known facts often + from often + from

www.britannica.com

1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.
2. Statistics. to estimate (the value of a variable) outside the tabulated or observed range.
3. Mathematics. to estimate (a function that is known over a range of values of its independent variable) to values outside the known range.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[Ingomike]

Second, you’re the one that gave the “I don’t know” answer as an option. But I guess when 75% of the respondents don’t agree with the answer you want, you think that eliminating it will make you right.

Since when did “I don’t know” become disagreement? I simply am pointing out that of those that have an opinion about 80% believe it likely to have occurred. You are so butt hurt over this you displaying an amusing bias.

 

[jamil]

Since when did “I don’t know” become disagreement? I simply am pointing out that of those that have an opinion about 80% believe it likely to have occurred. You are so butt hurt over this you displaying an amusing bias.

Since when? Well, I guess since the results weren't what you wanted. But hurt? Not I. You're the one that tried to throw away 75% of the vote.

 

[Ingomike]

Since when? Well, I guess since the results weren't what you wanted. But hurt? Not I.

Butt hurt.

You're the one that tried to throw away 75% of the vote.

Only you would think choosing not to answer the actual question is a real vote…

 

[foszoe]

Butt hurt.


Only you would think choosing not to answer the actual question is a real vote…

I keep waiting for you to make the connection between bacon voters and all that is wrong with the Republican party because people won't commit to real answers.

 

[jamil]

Butt hurt.


Only you would think choosing not to answer the actual question is a real vote…

LOL. You asked a question and provided 3 choices for answers.

1) yes it was likely
2) no it was not likely
3) I don't know/bacon.

"I don't know", is not only an answer to the question, it is the correct answer. And most people who responded, responded correctly. They gave the most accurate answer to the question available. Claiming it was likely, given the the weak information provided by GWP, without corroboration, and you even claimed at one point that your instincts are sufficient, are silly reasons to have such confidence that it happened. And why would I be butt hurt. I'm enjoying our conversations. We should do this more often.

 

[Ingomike]

LOL. You asked a question and provided 3 choices for answers.

1) yes it was likely
2) no it was not likely
3) I don't know/bacon.

"I don't know", is not only an answer to the question, it is the correct answer. And most people who responded, responded correctly. They gave the most accurate answer to the question available. Claiming it was likely, given the the weak information provided by GWP, without corroboration, and you even claimed at one point that your instincts are sufficient, are silly reasons to have such confidence that it happened. And why would I be butt hurt. I'm enjoying our conversations. We should do this more often.

You are leaving out the “likely” in the options, yes it was likely, no it was not likely, I asked a preponderance of the evidence question not a beyond a reasonable doubt question. Bacon is the refuge of this that are unknowing…

 

[jamil]

You are leaving out the “likely” in the options, yes it was likely, no it was not likely, I asked a preponderance of the evidence question not a beyond a reasonable doubt question. Bacon is the refuge of this that are unknowing…

I did not answer a “beyond reasonable doubt” question. Perhaps this example will help you understand why, and how the "likely" operates between question -> answer.

Have aliens from outer space visited Earth?

1) likely
2) not likely
3) I don’t know

This is obviously not a beyond reasonable doubt question. And, #3 is the correct answer here too. I don’t know if aliens have visited Earth. There is not enough evidence to give me confidence to say it’s likely, or not likely. I don’t know.

 

[jamil]

TL;DR, Mike probably isn't crazy, per se.

Thinking about this a little more. Waiting for it to warm up a little outside... I've been thinking about the nature of the poll question and the question I compared it to, "have aliens from outer space visited Earth?"

Why be so confident in an answer without due cause? I just googled how many people believe aliens have visited Earth, and it looks to be about 7%. Are they crazy?

I think it's similar to the question, did we actually go to the moon? A similar portion of the population, 5%, strongly believe the moon landing was faked. So, are they crazy?

Here's another question in contrast of the poll question: Is the world flat? 1) likely, 2) not likely, 3) I don't know? Well, it's an absurd question, it's not just not likely, the correct answer is, "no, you ****ing nutter". It's an absurd claim, for which we have have no due cause to believe. The Earth is not flat. So yeah, I kinda think those people are crazy.

Does it matter if someone believes extraordinary things without due cause? I think it depends how absurd is the claim, and the due cause to believe it. In other words, the strength of evidence and rationale people apply to believe it.

Most people believe in something paranormal, for example. God/religion, is an example of that. I think religious belief is human nature. But that's not without due cause, per se, to believe in that. It's instinctive for most humans. One has to override the instinct for religion not to believe it. Belief in God is not an example of failing to think critically. It's believing in the default. But, it shows that belief is a tricky thing.

What about "is the world flat?" Is there something wrong with that thinking? I'd say yes. People who believe it fail to think critically. It's belief without due cause. I think those people probably believe all kinds of nutty things.

So what about people who believe there was a raid in Germany, given a bold claim and at best, weak evidence? I think people can have a capacity for critical thinking, but don't apply it to things they want to believe. Especially if they have a lot of trust in the people claiming it. I'd say I'm not confident enough to say they would be like the flat earth nutters, who would also believe all kinds of nutty things. However, I suspect the Venn diagram might show some overlap.

To say they're incapable of critical thinking or logical reasoning, we'd need to see a pattern of believe in extraordinary things without due cause, to have confidence they believe it just because they're nuts.

One thing I can conclude about this topic, is that Mike doesn't always apply sound logic. For example, he kept pushing the point that if I believe intelligence orgs have the capability/technology to fix elections, I should believe that they did. However, this is faulty logic because having the capacity does give due cause to believing it was likely to have happened. We'd need something else to rationally believe it was likely. Not everything that is possible, happens.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sometimes I see a thread pop up and for one reason or another I don’t click on it to participate. After a few days, if it’s still alive, I’ll peruse the first page and then jump to the last page, just to see how it’s evolved. This one has evolved just about how I would have imagined it would.

 

[firecadet613]

TL;DR, Mike probably isn't crazy, per se.

Thinking about this a little more. Waiting for it to warm up a little outside... I've been thinking about the nature of the poll question and the question I compared it to, "have aliens from outer space visited Earth?"

Why be so confident in an answer without due cause? I just googled how many people believe aliens have visited Earth, and it looks to be about 7%. Are they crazy?

I think it's similar to the question, did we actually go to the moon? A similar portion of the population, 5%, strongly believe the moon landing was faked. So, are they crazy?

Here's another question in contrast of the poll question: Is the world flat? 1) likely, 2) not likely, 3) I don't know? Well, it's an absurd question, it's not just not likely, the correct answer is, "no, you ****ing nutter". It's an absurd claim, for which we have have no due cause to believe. The Earth is not flat. So yeah, I kinda think those people are crazy.

Does it matter if someone believes extraordinary things without due cause? I think it depends how absurd is the claim, and the due cause to believe it. In other words, the strength of evidence and rationale people apply to believe it.

Most people believe in something paranormal, for example. God/religion, is an example of that. I think religious belief is human nature. But that's not without due cause, per se, to believe in that. It's instinctive for most humans. One has to override the instinct for religion not to believe it. Belief in God is not an example of failing to think critically. It's believing in the default. But, it shows that belief is a tricky thing.

What about "is the world flat?" Is there something wrong with that thinking? I'd say yes. People who believe it fail to think critically. It's belief without due cause. I think those people probably believe all kinds of nutty things.

So what about people who believe there was a raid in Germany, given a bold claim and at best, weak evidence? I think people can have a capacity for critical thinking, but don't apply it to things they want to believe. Especially if they have a lot of trust in the people claiming it. I'd say I'm not confident enough to say they would be like the flat earth nutters, who would also believe all kinds of nutty things. However, I suspect the Venn diagram might show some overlap.

To say they're incapable of critical thinking or logical reasoning, we'd need to see a pattern of believe in extraordinary things without due cause, to have confidence they believe it just because they're nuts.

One thing I can conclude about this topic, is that Mike doesn't always apply sound logic. For example, he kept pushing the point that if I believe intelligence orgs have the capability/technology to fix elections, I should believe that they did. However, this is faulty logic because having the capacity does give due cause to believing it was likely to have happened. We'd need something else to rationally believe it was likely. Not everything that is possible, happens.

If the intelligence agencies have ran/fixed elections overseas, why wouldn't they do that here in 2020?

The establishment HATES Trump. Why wouldn't they work to ensure he doesn't get back in, using all the tools in their toolbox?