Posted on 12/08/2020 6:29:07 AM PST by Kaslin
Leftists know perfectly well that their oft-repeated mantra “no evidence of voter fraud” is false because they’re the ones who perpetrated or abetted the fraud last month. We’d find this out soon enough from Joe Biden himself if it were possible to inject a truth serum into his veins instead of the usual drug cocktail he needs to function every day. (A drug test before Biden gets security clearances might not be a bad idea.) Failing that, I want to explain why “no evidence of voter fraud” is a liberal con.
While the concept of evidence has meaning in the law, which distinguishes between direct and circumstantial evidence, it is a relatively recent development. In the 4th century BC, Plato created the concept of epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and philosophers have been thinking about it ever since. What we have to say about the concept of evidence is highly relevant to the currently raging controversy about voter fraud. Our story flatly contradicts the one the liberals are pushing.
This is a crash course, so apologies for moving at breakneck speed.
Epistemologists don’t talk about evidence as an abstraction; that is, as if evidence were some thing or other “out there.” True, there is a sense of “evidence” in which evidence can be looked for and found (or not), examined, and so on (e.g., a fingerprint). That doesn’t mean that evidence is the sort of concrete thing that, for example, a rock is. You know, the sort of thing that Joe Biden has in his head—though rumor has it that they x-rayed his brain and found nothing.
First, says epistemology, a proposition exemplifies the property of being evident—one of many epistemic properties.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I was watching a PBS special on the history of Florida recently. The whole show was about “facts” regarding slaves, indentured servants, etc; and what they went thru - based on ‘affidavits’ they dug out of archives - (but there was no evidence /s)
What the election officials and legislators are going to give for
an excuse to ignore the evidence is going to get interesting.
More than 80 million people are seeing details of this election fraud and
many are not going to let it go unnoticed.
1) In an epistemic sense if Fred sees the cookie jar empty he may think it is evidence that his room-mate Sam ate the cookies. If Sam sees it empty he may see it as evidence that Fred ate the cookies. In both cases cookie jar being empty is evidence to the observers. This is one sense in which something can be "evidence".
2) In actual fact it could be the cookie monster got the cookies, in which case we may say that it turned out that the jar being empty was not evidence of Fred or Sam taking the cookies at all...but only "appeared" to be evidence.
But as we search for the facts and don't have them delivered to us automatically, the only definition of evidence that makes sense is the first one. And the sense in case 2 that it "only appeared to be evidence" just confuses the matter by bringing up an alternate definition for the same term that people might conflate with it.
This article begins to get at a much larger problem : our intellectual culture.
This is academically correct but our truth tellers are now liars. Academics are among the worst.
There is lot’s of evidence. What there isn’t a lot of is proof.
No judge will risk their and their families life for this election.
Future historians will mark this as the time where the United States of America left the old republican ways and began to transition to an Imperial mode of government.
Which means a lot of strife ahead.
This article is false, unsubstantiated and filled with disinformation, and has been totally debunked. There is no evidence of widespread lies.
Hey wow! Acting like the News Misleadia is fun!
I would like to believe election officials and legislatures are going to finally be cognitive of the consequences of playing along with this fraud will get them nowhere, but they’ve played this game up-til now...
“Evidence” is very simple. It need not be complicated. If I accuse a person of anything, no matter how absurd or truthful, my very accusation is evidence. And if I state it in a sworn affidavit, it becomes stronger evidence.
So, to be blunt, the evidence is a mountain. The question is not, “is there evidence?” The question is, “does the available evidence make a solid case? Is the evidence truthful? Does the evidence make the case for the law being broken?
And as Scott Adams said, and I paraphrase, if there is solid evidence that the vote tabulation process was kept, via force, from being transparent, the results are invalid.
So, does it?
Republicans have more evidence of voter fraud than the Democrats have of voter suppression.
If one wants to prevail in the courts, there is no substitute for actual “evidence”.
Well, if you want to win that is.
The author’s implausible diversion notwithstanding.
The chutzpah is strong in the Fake News Media. The Washingtoncompost “debunked” claims of fraud in Georgia by pointing out that those things Ruby Freeman rolled out from under the tables were not suitcases as we called them. They were ballot boxes! Ha! So there! Debunked!
bookmark
Accordingly, there is no evidence of racism in the United States, including police departments.
bump for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.