> Arrgh, you're doing it again! The burden of proof is on the accuser.
No, the burden of proof is on the claimant.
> You cited this guy to say that the election was fraudulent.
I cited him to say that fraud was possible.
> I proved he doesn't agree.
He claims the election wasn't stolen, without offering any proof. Thats a claim, with no evidence.
> Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent
I'm asking how he would know that it wasn't fraudulent. What are his ground for contradicting people who say there was fraud and changed votes? Surely he has reasons for making claims.
> Now you're saying he can't know that it WASN'T fraudulent... so therefore... it is? Surely you see that this logic doesn't work.
Thats not what I said. I said he disputed claims of fraud without any evidence, where 2 years ago he demonstrated that fraud was easy to achieve. Whether fraud actually occurred is unknown. But there's a difference between saying "these people who allege fraud has occurred have offered no proof" and "these people who say fraud has occurred are wrong." And there's a difference between saying "its possible that fraud occurred, and witnesses who were present say fraud occurred, so we should be open to the possibility that fraud occurred" and saying "these people say fraud occurred therefore fraud occurred", and saying "These people say they witnessed fraud but a pentester says they're wrong so no fraud occurred." Does that make sense to you?
> By that logic you're accusing literally the whole world of being cannibals!
That is a bizarre misreading of my statement. I'm saying I have not seen something that I wasn't in a position to see, so my lack of evidence is not evidence for anything. It would seem that enough evidence of dahmer's cannibalism was presented that my lack of eyewitness evidence is just as irrelevant as Halderman's lack of evidence of fraud in 2020.
> This isn't good faith. You don't believe any of this.
dude, can you maybe focus on the arguments that are being presented and perhaps contemplate the difference between making a statement about the evidentiary status of a claim and making a claim yourself? This is basic stuff when it comes to epistemology and at this point I can't tell whether you understand this and are arguing in bad faith, or actually don't understand it and think I am arguing in bad faith.
I might be wrong (it has happened before) but I'm quite sure there is a difference between observing the lack of evidence for someone else's claim and making a claim yourself.