Here's something to consider though...

Proving that Russians hacked the dnc server and that Trump's campaign facilitated that is not necessary for proving that one satisfied the expressed objective of Russian intelligence operatives.

I never said it was, but proving one satisfied the expressed objective of Russian intelligence operations does not mean the Russians hacked the DNC server and that Trump's campaign facilitated that.

You're lost.

You're claiming that there is no evidence, when you mean that there has been no evidence provided.

I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public. That is borne out by the everyday events. Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.

279
You're lost.

The one who is lost here is you, and I've made that very clear.

I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public — creativesoul

Yes, and the fact no evidence has been provided, when prosecutors are allowed to release it, after 8 months helps prove how lost you are.

Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.

And you further prove how lost you are., You don't need a warrant to release evidence already gathered. That's nonsensical. So, it is not close to clear they have evidence, and the fact they've released none after 8 months makes it most likely they have none. You actually see them providing no evidence after 8 months when they can release it as proof they have it...extremely lost.

I wrote:

The claim that "there is no evidence the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence Trump or his campaign facilitated that" means something quite different from "there has been no evidence provided that the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence provided Trump or his campaign facilitated that".

Sand replied:

No, it doesn't because that's exactly what people mean when they say "there's no evidence.'

May I suggest that you say what you mean?

:-}

I did; may I suggest you learn to read better? 8-)

Sand wrote:

...the fact no evidence has been provided, when prosecutors are allowed to release it, after 8 months helps prove how lost you are.

Releasing the evidence of an ongoing investigation into the public sphere is not allowed. That is especially true regarding cases of this magnitude.

Sigh...

I wrote:

Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.

Sand replied:

And you further prove how lost you are., You don't need a warrant to release evidence already gathered. That's nonsensical.

You're arguing against an imaginary opponent. I didn't say that, nor does it necessarily follow from what I have said. I laid out a line of reasoning whereby we can gather a few facts and draw a conclusion based upon them. You've responded to things I did not claim and ignored what I did.

So, it is not close to clear they have evidence, and the fact they've released none after 8 months makes it most likely they have none.

So, your argument goes like this...

p1. Warrant is not needed to release evidence.
p2. No evidence has been provided.
C. There is no evidence

My argument goes like this...

p1. Warrant requires evidence.
p2. Warrants have been issued.
C1. There is evidence.

There's a bit of irony here involving the operative thought/belief that Sand is working from, given the title of the thread.

Faux news strikes again by virtue of establishing the framework of discussion. This time in terms of "there is no evidence".

Sand wrote:

...the fact no evidence has been provided, when prosecutors are allowed to release it, after 8 months helps prove how lost you are.

Releasing the evidence of an ongoing investigation into the public sphere is not allowed. That is especially true regarding cases of this magnitude.

Sigh...

That is not true at all, and you haven't come close to cite the case supporting your false statement.

Sigh....

I wrote:

Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.

Sand replied:

And you further prove how lost you are., You don't need a warrant to release evidence already gathered. That's nonsensical.

You're arguing against an imaginary opponent. I didn't say that, nor does it necessarily follow from what I have said. I laid out a line of reasoning whereby we can gather a few facts and draw a conclusion based upon them. You've responded to things I did not claim and ignored what I did.

You actually wrote, "I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public. That is borne out by the everyday events. Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public."

So, you left the top part I actually addressed to try to make it look like I was "arguing against an imaginary opponent." When you have to lie like you just did., you know you have a bad argument.

Sigh...

So, it is not close to clear they have evidence, and the fact they've released none after 8 months makes it most likely they have none.

So, your argument goes like this...

p1. Warrant is not needed to release evidence.
p2. No evidence has been provided.
C. There is no evidence

That's not my argument at all as you leave out the key elements of it bein 8 months passed with no evidence and I said it was most likely they have none. Again you lie and misrepresent my argument which further proves how terrible your argument is.

Well then Sand. I've offered up my argument. Evidently, I've gotten yours wrong. So...

Address mine, and offer yours.

My argument goes like this...

p1. Warrant requires evidence.
p2. Warrants have been issued.
C1. There is evidence.

P1..you have no idea what the warrant is for, so it doesnt' mean there's evidence Russia hacked the election or Trumps campaign facilitated it.

P2. Yes, but not necessarily for the hacking of the election. And considering the FBI never examined the DNC servers, what they call evidence may still be nothing.
'
P3. And you prove again how lost you are.

Address mine, and offer yours.

I've offered my argument. As I showed above, you misread and or misrepresented all of them. Address what I actually said without doing so, as I've already addressed yours.

There's a bit of irony here involving the operative thought/belief that Sand is working from, given the title of the thread.

Faux news strikes again by virtue of establishing the framework of discussion. This time in terms of "there is no evidence".

No, the irony is Creativesoul is providing "faux news" by asserting there's evidence when none has been provided after 8 months and nothing points to anyone having any.

p1. Warrant requires evidence
p2. Warrants have been issued
C1. There is evidence

The primary premiss is true. The secondary premiss is true. The conclusion follows from the premisses.

Provide your argument in less convoluted terms. State the premisses and a valid conclusion from them, and we can take it from there.

286
p1. Warrant requires evidence
p2. Warrants have been issued
C1. There is evidence

The primary premiss is true. The secondary premiss is true. The conclusion follows from the premisses.

Sigh...

1. The primary premise is incomplete because it does not support your claim that a warrant specifically went out concerning the hacking of the election.

2. See number 1.

3. So, no evidence is necessitated by one and/or two, and you further show how lost you are.

Provide your argument in less convoluted terms. State the premisses and a valid conclusion from them, and we can take it from there. ]

I've provided my argument in perfect and clear terms, and you certainly haven't shown I haven't. The only one whose arguments were convoluted--and erroneous, fallacious, and dishonest--have been yours.

I wrote:

p1. Warrant requires evidence
p2. Warrants have been issued
C1. There is evidence

The primary premiss is true. The secondary premiss is true. The conclusion follows from the premisses.

You replied:

1. The primary premise is incomplete because it does not support your claim that a warrant specifically went out concerning the hacking of the election.

2. See number 1.

3. So, no evidence is necessitated by one and/or two, and you further show how lost you are.

You're not very good at this, are you?

The initial investigation concerned Russian interference in the election. That is a given. Warrants were issued based upon evidence relevant to that. That's how it works.

You're not very good at this, are you?

The initial investigation concerned Russian interference in the election. That is a given. Warrants were issued based upon evidence relevant to that. That's how it works.

I'm the only one here that's good at this. The initial investigation concerned speculation, not evidence, Russian hacked the election. So, we have no idea why these warrants were issued. That's how it works.

I'm tired teaching you logic, English, and our legal system. So, I'm moving on, leaving you to dance with yourself.....Ciao.

I'd be happy to see an argument stated in argumentative form. As would others, I presume. Can you provide something other than gratuitous assertions?

The initial investigation concerned speculation, not evidence, Russian hacked the election. So, we have no idea why these warrants were issued. That's how it works.

That's how your thought/belief about the matter works. How warrant and investigation works is another matter altogether, and your understanding isn't necessary for that.

The above shows, quite unfortunately, how little general knowledge some folk have regarding how federal investigations work. Stating that one has no idea why warrants were issued is prima facie evidence of either the author having no idea how the system works, or the author not trusting the system, possibly both.

Warrants expand an investigation by virtue of allowing further(new) actions to be taken, including but not limited to gathering of new evidence by new means. Warrants are issued based upon evidence. Evidence is measured in terms of relevance and adequacy/sufficiency. Thus, when a prosecutor presents evidence as a means for seeking a warrant, the evidence must be relevant and adequate/sufficient. If that is not the case, there is no warrant issued.

With all this in mind, it is quite clear that there is/was some evidence that Russia meddled in the election, for if there were not, there would not have been warrants, and thus the investigation could not have broadened like it has. That is not to say that the evidence was sufficient to prove Trump collusion, it may not have been. However, it was sufficient to warrant furthering the investigation.

So... given that the investigation has broadened, and that requires warrant, and warrant requires evidence, it only follows that there is/was evidence, regardless of whether or not it has been provided to the public.

Total. Shambles.

Oh come now Jeep...

X-)

We could look at that little skirmish through the lense of post truth. It most certainly fits. Saying that "there is no evidence" means the same thing as "there has been no evidence provided to the public" is a prima facie example of how some of the current narrative is neglecting truth by virtue of neglecting to consider how those types of investigations work.

It's, quite literally, an argument that is grounded upon ignorance of the facts. It serves only to confuse the listener by virtue of muddling the focus. I have no idea of whether or not this is intentional, but it certainly seems to be a means of distraction intended to influence public opinion on the matter at hand. The only problem is that the only folk who fall for it are those who do not understand how the system works. So, any attempt to show the error can and often is taken quite personally. Thus, it requires a much better 'teacher' than me...

:P

Six months ago I made this comment:

↪Wayfarer ↪Moliere This thread began as an epistemological analysis of the term 'post truth'. The article I linked elsewhere about narcissistic personality disorder goes further to explain the reasons behind Trump's unusual relationship with truth. I think it provides us with more insight, predicting the purging that is likely to happen next when Trump's desires are frustrated. — Banno

Now comes the purge.

Did you also predict that N. Korea would grow ICBMs? Considering your proximity, maybe you folks should pick a general to be your chief of staff (or whatever you call that person).

Meh. They can only reach as far as Darwin. There's nothing up there.

Good.

But here's an odd thing. Why is it that the tipping point is not the North Koreans being able to bomb Seoul, or Beijing, or Osaka, or Vladivostok - but San Fran?

Tipping point for what?

My guess is Trump is concerned and presently pondering military options.

The OP makes no mention of Trump.

Threads have their own life, of course, but at the inception I had in mind a discussion about the role of the Post Modernist denial of 'objective' truth in favour of 'subjective' relativism in producing a world in which truth is irrelevant.

The claim, made over several posts and so probably lost, is that the critique of Feyerabend's anything goes applies here; in a world in which validity and evidence do not count, the powerful & wealthy will decide what happens. Anything goes means that everything stays.

So Trump is as much a result of Post modernists as of stupidity.