I did/do plenty don't worry about me. I was there. If you watch various streams and videos of our movement, you've likely seen me. One among many btw, nothing special.
But either way even if I sat on my ass and just told people the truth on the internet, yes thats a major improvement.
Literally doing nothing but staring at a wall would be better than telling little fairy tales to people who aren't emotionally mature. Least it wouldn't give people false hope.
Using phrases like emotionally mature while ranting about Lin Wood horribly damaging our movement is absolutely hilarious, and even if you went to rallys im sure you havent devoted a 10th of what Lin has to MAGA
Maybe Lin Wood envisioned a world where the left didn't steal the entire damn country when he made those statements.
For example, we all had plenty of evidence of the election being stolen, beyond a reasonable doubt - enough for many of us to say, plenty of times (circa Nov - Dec), "We got 'em now" "We caught them all, and they're gonna pay", etc, etc...
And then they stole our country, and created a false flag to shift attention away.
If you sat on your ass, waiting for Lin Wood to save the day because he said "Patience", then I'm sorry, but YOU are the problem.
Let's be real, the only people who are legitimately blaming QAnon beyond a passive dismissal, are the people who were never going to get off their asses to do anything in the first place. Literal armchair patriots.
this. fuck lin wood. he and sidney powell are choke artists and they did nothing but hurt the POTUS' legal team and strategy. wood and powell accused GOP legislators and governors of receiving chicom bribes with NO EVIDENCE. then right before 1/6 wood went on a tirade and started saying pence should be executed and other crap. what did people really expect was going to happen when those two saul goodman-level lawyers leeched onto the POTUS and completely destroyed the POTUS' legal strategy?
If Trump's legal team was hurt by Lin Wood and Sidney Powel, then his legal team sucked. Good thing that didn't actually happen though - not like it mattered in the end.
Well unfortunately with his track record, it's not like what he says carries a lot of weight so why bother going to court over something that was said by a nobody?
fuck lin wood. he and sidney powell are choke artists and they did nothing but hurt the POTUS' legal team and strategy. wood and powell accused GOP legislators and governors of receiving chicom bribes with NO EVIDENCE. then right before 1/6 wood went on a tirade and started saying pence should be executed and other crap. what did people really expect was going to happen when those two saul goodman-level lawyers leeched onto the POTUS and completely destroyed the POTUS' legal strategy?
No, you actually cannot prove a negative. It is definitionally impossible to do so.
To generate proof of something, you must make an assertion and then follow a repeatable procedure to arrive at your conclusion. You cannot arrive at a falsehood, due to a falsehood being definitionally impossible.
We can't prove that 4 + 4 is not equal to 9. What we can prove instead is that 4 + 4 is equal to 8, and we can also prove that the + operator cannot generate different outputs given the same inputs. We "prove the negative" by proving positive assertions that negate the negative.
The positive assertion that would have to be proven, to prove the negative statement of "Pence is not a pedophile", would be to assert that at no time in Pence's life has he fucked a child. The proof of this... well, that would be an excerpt from the memory of an omniscient being, I suppose.
Can you provide a concrete example of a proof of a negative assertion? I've heard the occasional claim that negative proofs are possible, but I've never seen/been patient enough to locate one. I work in programming and it's extremely against my experience that a negative can be proven; I'm frequently reframing tasks from negative to positive in order to find bugs (e.g. if a user asserts that "X doesn't work", the process of fixing the issue is entirely finding areas that can be proven to function correctly, until the only area that remains is the one that is broken)
The best I've arrived at is falsification as expressed in my math example above, and I think also in the extrapolation of Karl Popper's argument, if I'm interpreting that correctly. If all we have to work with is a negative, then the negative -itself- can't be proven by addressing the negative -itself-. You have to come at it from the angle of a positive assertion, like "Pence has always had a reliable witness to his behavior".
So you can "arrive at proof that a negative statement is false", but I think the common sentiment of "you can't prove a negative" is aimed at the attempt to directly prove/disprove a negative assertion itself, and isn't meant to imply that it's impossible to arrive at proof etc.
I didn't read any bitchiness from what you've said, I think you're doing a'ight :)
If you are serious about your argument, I will demonstrate to you the fallacies in your argumentation.
"Why unicorns?"
Irrelevant.
"Do you believe in them?"
Irrelevant.
"Hm, that's strange."
Irrelevant.
"You use them as an example of a creature that doesn't exist."
I made an assertion, you are assuming it is true.
"Why would you think that?"
Irrelevant. Address the statement itself.
"Perhaps because they don't exist, and there are reasons to believe they are mythological as opposed to a viable hypothesis?"
You are in agreement with the assertion, despite the lack of evidence. Reasons to believe something is not the same as proof of whether something is true or not.
"Keep in mind that 'proof' as a logical proposition does admit of negative assertions. [There is no algorithm which can determine the distance between primary numbers]."
This statement is nonsensical because proof in and of itself is not a logical proposition. An assertion, whether it is positive or negative, is a logical proposition.
"Sure you can generate some hypothesis with no evidence"
Agree, never made an argument to say otherwise.
"which, other than being contrary to our knowledge of biology and whose mythological roots are understood to some extent."
This statement still does not prove anything. It doesn't confirm the original statement as true and does not demonstrate the positive statement as false. Logically only the positive statement of "unicorns exist" can be proven to be true, because the absence of evidence is not proof of anything.
"In a legal sense, 'guilty until proven innocent' is not a perfect guide to epistemology. It is, rather, a rule of thumb which, theoretically, puts a brake on the impulse to decide that a person is guilty by virtue of accusation. It is more of a social and psychological precept than a scientific one."
I assume you meant innocent until proven guilty and that notion came about because it is based on the rationale I am attempting to convey to you now. That principle relies on proving a positive assertion to be true. Such a positive assertion such as Mike Pence is a pedophile can only ever be proven to be true. The opposite negative statement of Mike Pence is not a pedophile, which would be the counter argument, cannot be proven true, as the statement itself presupposes an absence of evidence. This court case would simply be the refutation of the evidence proving the positive assertion.
"Again, I apologize to you too for being snarky. I got up on the wrong side of the bed today. In any case, I didn't smash through the brick wall beside my bed, but I would imagine you already know that negative somehow."
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being serious. So I addressed you seriously.
Is Lin confused? You don't prove a negative, if they did sue, it's up to Lin to prove his statements are in fact true. Innocent until proven guilty is still a thing right?
No, Lin Wood is not confused. Burden is on the plaintiff to prove the statements he is making are knowingly false AND caused damage.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases because your liberty is at risk.
The burden in civil court is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Correct. Roberts or Pence would be the accusers they have to prove that Lin's information is false to claim damages … if they bring the lawsuit forward. Lin is daring them to sue him because he apparently has the information and evidence to back up his statements of defamation. If Lin is sued he gets to investigate personal items of Pence and/or Roberts to corroborate his evidence (discovery).
Whistleblower, eyewitness, documents, video, pictures, schedules, victims. Shit, I don't know what he has. Either he has something or is an exceptional bluff. Lin has celebrity and a platform he is saying some outrageous stuff about the chief justice of the supreme court and a former vice president......How long can they ignore him and let me carry on? Is this account he posting from legit?
Perhaps Lin knows the DOJ and FBI would do nothing with it. Fucking FBI has had that hard drive of Hunter's for a year. They didn't need to get it from Rudy.
I don't know what the truth is, but I have a hard time believing Lin and Sidney Powell have lost their minds, or played.
It doesn't matter if the FBI and DOJ don't do their jobs. If you have evidence, you turn it over and publicly demand a criminal investigation, like Rudy did.
They can't sue Lin because he hasn't harmed them with his accusations, and Lin knows this. Yet he keeps pushing this idea of them not suing is evidence of guilt.
They have to demonstrate it with factual things that have happend to them, speculation is not enough. Also it is much harder for public figures to win libel cases.
Agreed with the second statement. Accusing a public figure of illegal adoption and possibly being tied to the world's most notorious pedophile is pretty defamatory and damaging especially when he posts to all followers on social media, I think he even stole a few headlines with some of those posts. But you are probably right as Clinton just ignores it as well.
Maybe he has. Maybe his info shows they already know. I have no idea. If Robert's wanted to show injury he would sue on his illegally adopted Epstein bought children's behalf. One day they may wonder if it's true.
This is civil court and he's referring to a libel case, so he's right in that regard.
Other than that though he's a fucking lunatic we shouldn't be paying attention to. Everything he said caused idiots to sit on their ass and be patient expecting someone else to step up.
Yep and now Lin Wood is now claiming that Trump is still President running things behind the scenes and that the military is going to arrest Biden.
I already see all his followers crawling out of the wood work to repeat this nonsense like all the other disinformation they spewed after the election that made people sit on their ass waiting for "the plan"
I've made it my focus to call these people out. If we ever went to make progress with the movement we need to call them out. Enough with the fantasy LARPs. Our movement was better without them making us look like delusional idiots harping on about mass arrests and super secret plans.
Yeah, you're right. This is why I argued above however that they cant sue him unless they can demonstrate some sort of financial harm or loss of opportunity that Lin is directly responsible for.
They haven't suffered any damages because of Lin so they don't have a case to sue for. Yet them not suing is evidence of guilt in Lin's mind and in that of his followers?
I don't give a fuck what a liar has to say.
Where are all the fucking arrests? Where is Pence's firing squad?
Stop listening to lunatic con men taking advantage of our movement.
Is he in charge of the DoJ you retard?
Somebodies mad I'm making it hard to continue the fantasy by mentioning the real world. Sorry little guy.
Sounds like youre mad Lin Wood didnt ride in on a white horse and shoot roberts and pence in the face 🤷♂️
No, that useless boomer lunatic is just making shit up. Has nothing to do with anything. Muh white hats
And what do you do, complain on the internet about it?
I did/do plenty don't worry about me. I was there. If you watch various streams and videos of our movement, you've likely seen me. One among many btw, nothing special.
But either way even if I sat on my ass and just told people the truth on the internet, yes thats a major improvement.
Literally doing nothing but staring at a wall would be better than telling little fairy tales to people who aren't emotionally mature. Least it wouldn't give people false hope.
Using phrases like emotionally mature while ranting about Lin Wood horribly damaging our movement is absolutely hilarious, and even if you went to rallys im sure you havent devoted a 10th of what Lin has to MAGA
Maybe Lin Wood envisioned a world where the left didn't steal the entire damn country when he made those statements.
For example, we all had plenty of evidence of the election being stolen, beyond a reasonable doubt - enough for many of us to say, plenty of times (circa Nov - Dec), "We got 'em now" "We caught them all, and they're gonna pay", etc, etc...
And then they stole our country, and created a false flag to shift attention away.
Time to live in reality.
Then that makes him responsible in part because his and others little made up stories gave people false hopes and drove them to complacency.
'patience the plan, muh white hats r gunna save you'
Bunch of utter bullshit.
If you sat on your ass, waiting for Lin Wood to save the day because he said "Patience", then I'm sorry, but YOU are the problem.
Let's be real, the only people who are legitimately blaming QAnon beyond a passive dismissal, are the people who were never going to get off their asses to do anything in the first place. Literal armchair patriots.
Bingo, lazy asshats looking for someone to blame, because its the only way they feel powerful
this. fuck lin wood. he and sidney powell are choke artists and they did nothing but hurt the POTUS' legal team and strategy. wood and powell accused GOP legislators and governors of receiving chicom bribes with NO EVIDENCE. then right before 1/6 wood went on a tirade and started saying pence should be executed and other crap. what did people really expect was going to happen when those two saul goodman-level lawyers leeched onto the POTUS and completely destroyed the POTUS' legal strategy?
If Trump's legal team was hurt by Lin Wood and Sidney Powel, then his legal team sucked. Good thing that didn't actually happen though - not like it mattered in the end.
"I have the worst fucking lawyers."
My brother.
Lin is cringe
We don't need facts when we have conspiracy theorists!
Well unfortunately with his track record, it's not like what he says carries a lot of weight so why bother going to court over something that was said by a nobody?
fuck lin wood. he and sidney powell are choke artists and they did nothing but hurt the POTUS' legal team and strategy. wood and powell accused GOP legislators and governors of receiving chicom bribes with NO EVIDENCE. then right before 1/6 wood went on a tirade and started saying pence should be executed and other crap. what did people really expect was going to happen when those two saul goodman-level lawyers leeched onto the POTUS and completely destroyed the POTUS' legal strategy?
Trump never sued the Atlantic over the "soldiers are losers" story so was that true too, Lin?
Shut up you retard basket case.
No, you actually cannot prove a negative. It is definitionally impossible to do so.
To generate proof of something, you must make an assertion and then follow a repeatable procedure to arrive at your conclusion. You cannot arrive at a falsehood, due to a falsehood being definitionally impossible.
We can't prove that 4 + 4 is not equal to 9. What we can prove instead is that 4 + 4 is equal to 8, and we can also prove that the + operator cannot generate different outputs given the same inputs. We "prove the negative" by proving positive assertions that negate the negative.
The positive assertion that would have to be proven, to prove the negative statement of "Pence is not a pedophile", would be to assert that at no time in Pence's life has he fucked a child. The proof of this... well, that would be an excerpt from the memory of an omniscient being, I suppose.
Can you provide a concrete example of a proof of a negative assertion? I've heard the occasional claim that negative proofs are possible, but I've never seen/been patient enough to locate one. I work in programming and it's extremely against my experience that a negative can be proven; I'm frequently reframing tasks from negative to positive in order to find bugs (e.g. if a user asserts that "X doesn't work", the process of fixing the issue is entirely finding areas that can be proven to function correctly, until the only area that remains is the one that is broken)
The best I've arrived at is falsification as expressed in my math example above, and I think also in the extrapolation of Karl Popper's argument, if I'm interpreting that correctly. If all we have to work with is a negative, then the negative -itself- can't be proven by addressing the negative -itself-. You have to come at it from the angle of a positive assertion, like "Pence has always had a reliable witness to his behavior".
So you can "arrive at proof that a negative statement is false", but I think the common sentiment of "you can't prove a negative" is aimed at the attempt to directly prove/disprove a negative assertion itself, and isn't meant to imply that it's impossible to arrive at proof etc.
I didn't read any bitchiness from what you've said, I think you're doing a'ight :)
I think then that we are in agreement! We just went about our definitions from different angles.
If I said to you that unicorns don't exist, how do I prove that as a factual statement?
Your statement is an idiotic trope.
You really want to engage in sophistry to save face for a clearly stupid thing to say?
Go right ahead.
If you are serious about your argument, I will demonstrate to you the fallacies in your argumentation.
"Why unicorns?"
Irrelevant.
"Do you believe in them?"
Irrelevant.
"Hm, that's strange."
Irrelevant.
"You use them as an example of a creature that doesn't exist."
I made an assertion, you are assuming it is true.
"Why would you think that?"
Irrelevant. Address the statement itself.
"Perhaps because they don't exist, and there are reasons to believe they are mythological as opposed to a viable hypothesis?"
You are in agreement with the assertion, despite the lack of evidence. Reasons to believe something is not the same as proof of whether something is true or not.
"Keep in mind that 'proof' as a logical proposition does admit of negative assertions. [There is no algorithm which can determine the distance between primary numbers]."
This statement is nonsensical because proof in and of itself is not a logical proposition. An assertion, whether it is positive or negative, is a logical proposition.
"Sure you can generate some hypothesis with no evidence"
Agree, never made an argument to say otherwise.
"which, other than being contrary to our knowledge of biology and whose mythological roots are understood to some extent."
This statement still does not prove anything. It doesn't confirm the original statement as true and does not demonstrate the positive statement as false. Logically only the positive statement of "unicorns exist" can be proven to be true, because the absence of evidence is not proof of anything.
"In a legal sense, 'guilty until proven innocent' is not a perfect guide to epistemology. It is, rather, a rule of thumb which, theoretically, puts a brake on the impulse to decide that a person is guilty by virtue of accusation. It is more of a social and psychological precept than a scientific one."
I assume you meant innocent until proven guilty and that notion came about because it is based on the rationale I am attempting to convey to you now. That principle relies on proving a positive assertion to be true. Such a positive assertion such as Mike Pence is a pedophile can only ever be proven to be true. The opposite negative statement of Mike Pence is not a pedophile, which would be the counter argument, cannot be proven true, as the statement itself presupposes an absence of evidence. This court case would simply be the refutation of the evidence proving the positive assertion.
"Again, I apologize to you too for being snarky. I got up on the wrong side of the bed today. In any case, I didn't smash through the brick wall beside my bed, but I would imagine you already know that negative somehow."
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being serious. So I addressed you seriously.
Maybe they haven't sued him because they don't give a fuck.
“Lin Wood is a penguin that stole my ironing board in 1974”
It must be true guys, he has t sued me yet...
I don't think Lin lied, Pence's fag was a traitor, there are a lot of RINOs in the Republican party.
And the worst of all China is eating the USA, WHOSE'S FAULT? ... because of the American bitches bought with CHICOM money
"Could they meet they burden?"
Huh?
Is Lin confused? You don't prove a negative, if they did sue, it's up to Lin to prove his statements are in fact true. Innocent until proven guilty is still a thing right?
No, Lin Wood is not confused. Burden is on the plaintiff to prove the statements he is making are knowingly false AND caused damage. Innocent until proven guilty applies to criminal cases because your liberty is at risk. The burden in civil court is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Correct. Roberts or Pence would be the accusers they have to prove that Lin's information is false to claim damages … if they bring the lawsuit forward. Lin is daring them to sue him because he apparently has the information and evidence to back up his statements of defamation. If Lin is sued he gets to investigate personal items of Pence and/or Roberts to corroborate his evidence (discovery).
Is Lin implying that he has video?
Whistleblower, eyewitness, documents, video, pictures, schedules, victims. Shit, I don't know what he has. Either he has something or is an exceptional bluff. Lin has celebrity and a platform he is saying some outrageous stuff about the chief justice of the supreme court and a former vice president......How long can they ignore him and let me carry on? Is this account he posting from legit?
I just don’t see him bluffing with this subject
With Pence, maybe but unlikely.
You don’t bluff that with the chief justice of the super court of the United States.
And the people screaming that Roberts isn’t the one on the Epstein log... that’s not the only accusation.
Right, so if Lin truly believes the things he is saying but is mistaken then there is no punishment for Lin and no reason to sue.
They also haven't suffered any financial harm because of Lin, so again nothing to sue for.
Lin knows that his accusations haven't harmed them in any meaningful way and they can't demand relief.
So Lin is just performing theater at this point and grifting whoever is still listening.
If he had evidence, he would have turned over copies to the DOJ and FBI and demanded an investigation, like Rudy did with Hunter's laptop.
Perhaps Lin knows the DOJ and FBI would do nothing with it. Fucking FBI has had that hard drive of Hunter's for a year. They didn't need to get it from Rudy.
I don't know what the truth is, but I have a hard time believing Lin and Sidney Powell have lost their minds, or played.
It doesn't matter if the FBI and DOJ don't do their jobs. If you have evidence, you turn it over and publicly demand a criminal investigation, like Rudy did.
They can't sue Lin because he hasn't harmed them with his accusations, and Lin knows this. Yet he keeps pushing this idea of them not suing is evidence of guilt.
Don't these accusations hurt their character and reputation as politicians? I am sure a dollar figure could be attached to that.
They have to demonstrate it with factual things that have happend to them, speculation is not enough. Also it is much harder for public figures to win libel cases.
Agreed with the second statement. Accusing a public figure of illegal adoption and possibly being tied to the world's most notorious pedophile is pretty defamatory and damaging especially when he posts to all followers on social media, I think he even stole a few headlines with some of those posts. But you are probably right as Clinton just ignores it as well.
Maybe he has. Maybe his info shows they already know. I have no idea. If Robert's wanted to show injury he would sue on his illegally adopted Epstein bought children's behalf. One day they may wonder if it's true.
No, he would be the defendant. You are the one who has it backwards.
You arent even using the right words. Its plaintiff
This is civil court and he's referring to a libel case, so he's right in that regard.
Other than that though he's a fucking lunatic we shouldn't be paying attention to. Everything he said caused idiots to sit on their ass and be patient expecting someone else to step up.
Yep and now Lin Wood is now claiming that Trump is still President running things behind the scenes and that the military is going to arrest Biden.
I already see all his followers crawling out of the wood work to repeat this nonsense like all the other disinformation they spewed after the election that made people sit on their ass waiting for "the plan"
God this is sickening.
They're basically a 5th column among us and don't even know it. Mentally deranged.
Give them no quarter anywhere fellas
I've made it my focus to call these people out. If we ever went to make progress with the movement we need to call them out. Enough with the fantasy LARPs. Our movement was better without them making us look like delusional idiots harping on about mass arrests and super secret plans.
Same here brother. Need to spread our cause further.
For their own good they can't be allowed to further the fantasies. It hurts us, and frankly it's embarrassing.
Yeah, you're right. This is why I argued above however that they cant sue him unless they can demonstrate some sort of financial harm or loss of opportunity that Lin is directly responsible for.
They haven't suffered any damages because of Lin so they don't have a case to sue for. Yet them not suing is evidence of guilt in Lin's mind and in that of his followers?
His followers are insane, that's the catch.
Huh? Stay in your lane on this one.