Kamala Harris smashes fundraising record with stunning $81 million haul over 24 hours!

[Chakdephatte]

20 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

As a candidate, he was no good too. But, He won an election and lost one fair a square. 

Then why does he keep crying about the election. 

 

I don't agree that we won all fair and square. He lost on popular vote, and since then, has been questioning the ballot. The event at US capitol was murder of democracy. 

 

Russia indirectly helped him by campaigning against Hillary. It was behind email leaks. As a result, Trump has been happy losing everything to Russia. Not even once, he has admitted that he was lucky to win, and has been spreading conspiracies after a clear loss

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, Chakdephatte said:

Then why does he keep crying about the election. 

 

I don't agree that we won all fair and square. He lost on popular vote, and since then, has been questioning the ballot. The event at US capitol was murder of democracy. 

 

Russia indirectly helped him by campaigning against Hillary. It was behind email leaks. As a result, Trump has been happy losing everything to Russia. Not even once, he has admitted that he was lucky to win, and has been spreading conspiracies after a clear loss

I am not his spokesperson or even his voter to know why he says such things.  He won an election as per the electoral rules. Russia might have influenced through SM campaigns, but still voters went and voted based on what they felt. SM penetration hardly is effective in swaying elections. It is the TV ads, rallies and who endorses. Hilary lost mainly by media coverage of email probe and FBI director’s statement on her, just  days before election. She lost all swing states that mattered where undecided voters shifted. 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Chakdephatte said:

Then why does he keep crying about the election. 

I don't agree that we won all fair and square. He lost on popular vote, and since then, has been questioning the ballot. The event at US capitol was murder of democracy. 

 

Russia indirectly helped him by campaigning against Hillary. It was behind email leaks. As a result, Trump has been happy losing everything to Russia. Not even once, he has admitted that he was lucky to win, and has been spreading conspiracies after a clear loss

You keep saying Russia helped him, but its been 4 years and not a shred of Russian evidence has been presented at court. I wonder why. 

Murder of democracy ? So democracy is dead in the US and its no longer a democracy ? 

 

PS: USA isnt a democracy. its a quasi-democratic republic, given that in many states the electoral college representatives are not legally bound to vote for the winning candidate. 

Also, US elections being questionable in integrity isnt a conspiracy, its a legitimate allegation, given that election rigging has happened all over the world and US elections are objectively, the easiest to fix, given that it does not have standardized vote counting and vote authenticating procedures, it varies state by state. Most people do not know this detail and Trump's allegations help expose it. Imagine if in Indian elections, each state had a different procedure for securing the ballot box, counting votes, authenticating votes, etc- that is what the US is. Its easy to see how such an obsolete and cumbersome system can easily be tampered with. Trump also exposed the fact that Democracts have little to no qualms in maintaining voter eligibility clauses, given how anti-ID the democrats are for voting purposes. 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

I am not his spokesperson or even his voter to know why he says such things.  He won an election as per the electoral rules. Russia might have influenced through SM campaigns, but still voters went and voted based on what they felt. SM penetration hardly is effective in swaying elections. It is the TV ads, rallies and who endorses. Hilary lost mainly by media coverage of email probe and FBI director’s statement on her, just  days before election. She lost all swing states that mattered where undecided voters shifted. 

Hillary lost simply because she called those who wont vote for her as 'deplorables' in national tv. Humans are spiteful creatures and if you go out of your way to insult me for exercising a choice, chances go up that i will go vote against you just outta spite. 

 

[Vicks57]

Hillary desperately wanted to be the first woman President of USA. If Kamala wins it, i bet Hillary will be miserable with rest of her life.

[Chakdephatte]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

I am not his spokesperson or even his voter to know why he says such things.  He won an election as per the electoral rules. 

My post was in response to your post saying he is not worse than Kamala, no? And you were also saying that he won and lost an election, even though he has made a national issue out of it? 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You keep saying Russia helped him, but its been 4 years and not a shred of Russian evidence has been presented at court. I wonder why. 

Murder of democracy ? So democracy is dead in the US and its no longer a democracy ? 

You obviously know that I used Democracy more as an adjective and not literally by definition. 

 

Regarding court evidence, I don't even know what you are trying to say. There are reports like the Muellar report, but proving them in court would do nothing. It's not like Trump was personally involved there, he was indirectly helped. It's an international issue and Russia would obviously never admit it. What exactly were you trying to prove? 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You keep saying Russia helped him, 

 

There is no 'You'. 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Chakdephatte said:

My post was in response to your post saying he is not worse than Kamala, no? And you were also saying that he won and lost an election, even though he has made a national issue out of it? 

 

You obviously know that I used Democracy more as an adjective and not literally by definition. 

 

Regarding court evidence, I don't even know what you are trying to say. There are reports like the Muellar report, but proving them in court would do nothing. It's not like Trump was personally involved there, he was indirectly helped. It's an international issue and Russia would obviously never admit it. What exactly were you trying to prove? 

 

 

There is no 'You'. 

You act like Mueller report is a non-partisan report. It isnt.  Simple fact of the matter is, despite all the allegations of Russian involvement to help Trump, there hasnt been a shred of evidence presented to make the case. Mueller report also doesnt present any evidence whatsoever.

 

[TellTheTruth]

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You keep saying Russia helped him, but its been 4 years and not a shred of Russian evidence has been presented at court. I wonder why. 

Murder of democracy ? So democracy is dead in the US and its no longer a democracy ? 

 

 

Also, US elections being questionable in integrity isnt a conspiracy, its a legitimate allegation, given that election rigging has happened all over the world and US elections are objectively, the easiest to fix, given that it does not have standardized vote counting and vote authenticating procedures, it varies state by state. Most people do not know this detail and Trump's allegations help expose it. Imagine if in Indian elections, each state had a different procedure for securing the ballot box, counting votes, authenticating votes, etc- that is what the US is. Its easy to see how such an obsolete and cumbersome system can easily be tampered with. Trump also exposed the fact that Democracts have little to no qualms in maintaining voter eligibility clauses, given how anti-ID the democrats are for voting purposes. 

 

Not really, the 2020 election has been the most audited in history and they found no evidence of large scale voter fraud, all the lawsuits filed where laughed out of court, and all the Republican and Independent audits found nothing. People in Trumps own administration said it was the most secure in history. The Republicans want voter Id because Urban area voters(mostly democrats) are less likely to have photo Id due to use of public transportation.  Same reason Republicans floated the idea of banning under 25 year olds from voting except for those that served in military (more likely to vote republican).

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, TellTheTruth said:

 

Not really, the 2020 election has been the most audited in history and they found no evidence of large scale voter fraud, all the lawsuits filed where laughed out of court, and all the Republican and Independent audits found nothing. People in Trumps own administration said it was the most secure in history. The Republicans want voter Id because Urban area voters(mostly democrats) are less likely to have photo Id due to use of public transportation.  Same reason Republicans floated the idea of banning under 25 year olds from voting except for those that served in military (more likely to vote republican).

 

Its irrelevant why Republicans want voter-ID. what is relevant is, any party that advocates voting without voter-ID is directly advocating for voter fraud. If you want to vote, go get voterID. thats what we do in India, thats what we do in Canada and every civilised nation. If you don't have ID because you use public transit, that is a you problem, that you need to solve, instead of asking us to accomodate you by compromising voter integrity and having fraudulent voting under someone else's name or multiple voting. 

 

As for the most audited election, its nonsense, given that US voting system is not a consistent & linear process to be satisfied with randomised auditing like we do with vvpat. Since almost every single state has separate ballot protocols, its an all or nothing audit - you either audit ALL the states or your audit still ends up being questionable. 

The fact that US audit follows a randomized sampling process, when the ballot system itself is not standardized, means that the audits are just lip-service sham processes: think about it. A randomized sampling audit makes sense if and only if you have a streamlined process. This is like saying you have 100 workers making clay pots, each one makes it differently, you have customer complaint about quality, so you choose to audit 4 dudes at random. That means nothing except trying to pay lip-service.

Not to mention, the only thing the US audited is the vote count. Not whether the votes cast were fraudulent or not because US voterID procedures, especially in the democrat controlled areas is non-existant. Which makes sense, given that the democrats are by their own party structure, not a democratic party.

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by Muloghonto

[TellTheTruth]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Its irrelevant why Republicans want voter-ID. what is relevant is, any party that advocates voting without voter-ID is directly advocating for voter fraud. If you want to vote, go get voterID. thats what we do in India, thats what we do in Canada and every civilised nation. If you don't have ID because you use public transit, that is a you problem, that you need to solve, instead of asking us to accomodate you by compromising voter integrity and having fraudulent voting under someone else's name or multiple voting. 

 

As for the most audited election, its nonsense, given that US voting system is not a consistent & linear process to be satisfied with randomised auditing like we do with vvpat. Since almost every single state has separate ballot protocols, its an all or nothing audit - you either audit ALL the states or your audit still ends up being questionable. 

The fact that US audit follows a randomized sampling process, when the ballot system itself is not standardized, means that the audits are just lip-service sham processes: think about it. A randomized sampling audit makes sense if and only if you have a streamlined process. This is like saying you have 100 workers making clay pots, each one makes it differently, you have customer complaint about quality, so you choose to audit 4 dudes at random. That means nothing except trying to pay lip-service.

Not to mention, the only thing the US audited is the vote count. Not whether the votes cast were fraudulent or not because US voterID procedures, especially in the democrat controlled areas is non-existant. Which makes sense, given that the democrats are by their own party structure, not a democratic party.

 

Not trying to getting into big ugly debate but your whole argument is based on a bunch of logical fallacies. Ill let chatgpt explain how.

 

The argument presented contains several logical fallacies:

1. Straw Man Fallacy: The author misrepresents the opposing argument by stating that any party against voter ID is advocating for voter fraud. This oversimplifies and distorts the actual arguments made by those who oppose voter ID laws, which often focus on issues of accessibility and disenfranchisement.

2. False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy): The argument suggests that the only options are to either implement voter ID laws or have fraudulent voting, ignoring other possible measures to ensure election integrity without disenfranchising voters.

3. Appeal to Tradition: The author references how voter ID is handled in India, Canada, and other nations, implying that because these countries have such laws, the U.S. should as well. This assumes that because something is done elsewhere, it is necessarily the best or correct approach for the U.S.

4. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "democrats are by their own party structure, not a democratic party" is a broad and unsubstantiated generalization that does not accurately reflect the complexity of the party or its policies.

5. Red Herring: The discussion about the auditing process diverts from the central issue of voter ID and voter fraud, introducing additional points about the election process that do not directly address the initial argument.

These fallacies weaken the overall argument by relying on misrepresentation, oversimplification, and irrelevant points instead of addressing the actual concerns and complexities involved in the debate over voter ID laws and election integrity.

[Muloghonto]

Just now, TellTheTruth said:

Not trying to getting into big ugly debate but your whole argument is based on a bunch of logical fallacies. Ill let chatgpt explain how.

 

The argument presented contains several logical fallacies:

1. Straw Man Fallacy: The author misrepresents the opposing argument by stating that any party against voter ID is advocating for voter fraud. This oversimplifies and distorts the actual arguments made by those who oppose voter ID laws, which often focus on issues of accessibility and disenfranchisement.

2. False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy): The argument suggests that the only options are to either implement voter ID laws or have fraudulent voting, ignoring other possible measures to ensure election integrity without disenfranchising voters.

3. Appeal to Tradition: The author references how voter ID is handled in India, Canada, and other nations, implying that because these countries have such laws, the U.S. should as well. This assumes that because something is done elsewhere, it is necessarily the best or correct approach for the U.S.

4. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "democrats are by their own party structure, not a democratic party" is a broad and unsubstantiated generalization that does not accurately reflect the complexity of the party or its policies.

5. Red Herring: The discussion about the auditing process diverts from the central issue of voter ID and voter fraud, introducing additional points about the election process that do not directly address the initial argument.

These fallacies weaken the overall argument by relying on misrepresentation, oversimplification, and irrelevant points instead of addressing the actual concerns and complexities involved in the debate over voter ID laws and election integrity.

 

None of these are applicable. 

1. Oversimplification is not a distortion. Its irrelevant what the actual arguments are, when the EFFECT of opposing voterID laws is increased chance of voter fraud.

2. There is false dilemma. VoterID is the main line of defense against fraudulent voting the world over. If you cannot prove your ID, then you cannot prove you have voted/not voted. 

3. It isnt appeal to tradition. it is appeal to median behaviour. There is no special case scenario for the US in this and your argument is called American exceptionalism. Which is demonstrably false. In a standardised process, the standards matter and if majority of independent processes converge on the same protocol, logic dictates that the protocol is logical and the violators are less logical.

4. It isnt an unsubstantiated generalisation. Democrat nominees do not need to gain grassroot approval. Eg: Kamala. There is no grassroot voting by the democratic base to choose her, its only the 2000 odd party big-wigs who choose her. Furthermore, unlike republicans, democrats have superpacs. Ie, upper caste vote mattering way more than lower caste vote. That is by definition undemocratic because the fundamental framework of democracy is that each vote is equal. Which it isnt in the Democrat party. 

5. It isnt red herring, it is questioning the integrity of the process in states controlled by a party that is undemocratic in its own structure. An undemocratic party cannot be trusted to be the upholder of democratic fundamentals : which is also confirmed by the fact that this undemocratic party is in favour of eliminating voterID, aka opening up the voting process for ballot-stuffing.

 

[TellTheTruth]

13 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

None of these are applicable. 

1. Oversimplification is not a distortion. Its irrelevant what the actual arguments are, when the EFFECT of opposing voterID laws is increased chance of voter fraud.

2. There is false dilemma. VoterID is the main line of defense against fraudulent voting the world over. If you cannot prove your ID, then you cannot prove you have voted/not voted. 

3. It isnt appeal to tradition. it is appeal to median behaviour. There is no special case scenario for the US in this and your argument is called American exceptionalism. Which is demonstrably false. In a standardised process, the standards matter and if majority of independent processes converge on the same protocol, logic dictates that the protocol is logical and the violators are less logical.

4. It isnt an unsubstantiated generalisation. Democrat nominees do not need to gain grassroot approval. Eg: Kamala. There is no grassroot voting by the democratic base to choose her, its only the 2000 odd party big-wigs who choose her. Furthermore, unlike republicans, democrats have superpacs. Ie, upper caste vote mattering way more than lower caste vote. That is by definition undemocratic because the fundamental framework of democracy is that each vote is equal. Which it isnt in the Democrat party. 

5. It isnt red herring, it is questioning the integrity of the process in states controlled by a party that is undemocratic in its own structure. An undemocratic party cannot be trusted to be the upholder of democratic fundamentals : which is also confirmed by the fact that this undemocratic party is in favour of eliminating voterID, aka opening up the voting process for ballot-stuffing.

 

Im not trying to be rude or anything but I dont think you really know what a logical fallacy is.

1.) Oversimplification vs. Distortion: The claim that opposing voter ID laws inherently increases the chance of voter fraud is an oversimplification. The initial argument did distort the actual opposing arguments, making it a straw man. The effect of opposing voter ID laws can be debated, but misrepresenting opponents' positions is fallacious.
2.)False Dilemma: The response reiterates the false dilemma. While voter ID can be a defense against fraudulent voting, presenting it as the only effective method ignores other potential safeguards and measures that can be implemented to secure elections.

3)Appeal to Tradition/Appeal to Common Practice: This point shifts from an appeal to tradition to an appeal to common practice, asserting that if most countries use voter ID, the U.S. should too. While this is slightly different, it still doesn't account for specific contextual differences between countries. The argument about American exceptionalism does not inherently invalidate the need for contextual considerations in policy-making.

4)Hasty Generalization: The argument about the Democratic party structure and super PACs is still a hasty generalization. It takes specific instances (like the nomination process for Kamala Harris) and extrapolates them to the entire party's democratic process, ignoring nuances and complexities.

5)Red Herring: The response doubles down on questioning the integrity of the process, which is a red herring because it diverts from the specific issue of voter ID laws to a broader critique of the Democratic party. This diverts attention away from the central issue, which is whether voter ID laws are necessary or effective.

6)This response also contains an ad hominem attack, as it criticizes the Democratic party's structure and trustworthiness rather than directly addressing the merits of voter ID laws and their impact on voter fraud.

 

Also, just to add, it isn't American exceptionalism to say that the U.S. is different from other countries. You're missing very basic nuances in American politics, such as how Republicans generally oppose uniform voting rules and pride themselves on being the party of states' rights. Making these oversimplified comparisons to other countries overlooks these important distinctions and why your obviously making arguments based on complete logical fallacies.

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, TellTheTruth said:

Im not trying to be rude or anything but I dont think you really know what a logical fallacy is.

1.) Oversimplification vs. Distortion: The claim that opposing voter ID laws inherently increases the chance of voter fraud is an oversimplification. The initial argument did distort the actual opposing arguments, making it a straw man. The effect of opposing voter ID laws can be debated, but misrepresenting opponents' positions is fallacious.

2.)False Dilemma: The response reiterates the false dilemma. While voter ID can be a defense against fraudulent voting, presenting it as the only effective method ignores other potential safeguards and measures that can be implemented to secure elections.

3)Appeal to Tradition/Appeal to Common Practice: This point shifts from an appeal to tradition to an appeal to common practice, asserting that if most countries use voter ID, the U.S. should too. While this is slightly different, it still doesn't account for specific contextual differences between countries. The argument about American exceptionalism does not inherently invalidate the need for contextual considerations in policy-making.

4)Hasty Generalization: The argument about the Democratic party structure and super PACs is still a hasty generalization. It takes specific instances (like the nomination process for Kamala Harris) and extrapolates them to the entire party's democratic process, ignoring nuances and complexities.

5)Red Herring: The response doubles down on questioning the integrity of the process, which is a red herring because it diverts from the specific issue of voter ID laws to a broader critique of the Democratic party. This diverts attention away from the central issue, which is whether voter ID laws are necessary or effective.

6)This response also contains an ad hominem attack, as it criticizes the Democratic party's structure and trustworthiness rather than directly addressing the merits of voter ID laws and their impact on voter fraud.

 

Also, just to add, it isn't American exceptionalism to say that the U.S. is different from other countries. You're missing very basic nuances in American politics, such as how Republicans generally oppose uniform voting rules and pride themselves on being the party of states' rights. Making these oversimplified comparisons to other countries overlooks these important distinctions and why your obviously making arguments based on complete logical fallacies.

 

1. There is no distortion. The claim that lack of voterID increases chance of voter fraud isnt oversimplification, it can be objectively demonstrated to be true.

2. Sophistry. Saying 'there are other means' without stating what other means is called obfuscating sophistry. Explain to us what these safeguards are

3. Appeal to standardised process isnt appeal to common practice. There is no contextual consideration in policy-making when it comes to standardised process. It behooves the anomaly to justify itself, not for the median to justify itself. 

4. It isnt hasty generalistion. There is no generalisation presented when stating an objective fact about democrat nomination process. Nuances and complexities are double-talk for non-democratic nomination process. You cannot have a democratic process if my vote counts for more than your vote. period.

5. It isnt a red herring, since integrity of the process is a seperate issue from the undemocratic procedures of the democrat party. 

6.  You cannot have ad-hominem attack against an institution. 

 

It is american exceptionalism to argue USa is a different country than other countries. That is literally what exceptionalism means : that we are exceptional, aka different. 

What is objectively true and mathematically demosntrable, is that the US voting process has the least failsafes, is the easiest to tamper with and has the most undemocratic principles in the democratic world. 

 

[TellTheTruth]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

1. There is no distortion. The claim that lack of voterID increases chance of voter fraud isnt oversimplification, it can be objectively demonstrated to be true.

2. Sophistry. Saying 'there are other means' without stating what other means is called obfuscating sophistry. Explain to us what these safeguards are

3. Appeal to standardised process isnt appeal to common practice. There is no contextual consideration in policy-making when it comes to standardised process. It behooves the anomaly to justify itself, not for the median to justify itself. 

4. It isnt hasty generalistion. There is no generalisation presented when stating an objective fact about democrat nomination process. Nuances and complexities are double-talk for non-democratic nomination process. You cannot have a democratic process if my vote counts for more than your vote. period.

5. It isnt a red herring, since integrity of the process is a seperate issue from the undemocratic procedures of the democrat party. 

6.  You cannot have ad-hominem attack against an institution. 

 

It is american exceptionalism to argue USa is a different country than other countries. That is literally what exceptionalism means : that we are exceptional, aka different. 

What is objectively true and mathematically demosntrable, is that the US voting process has the least failsafes, is the easiest to tamper with and has the most undemocratic principles in the democratic world. 

 

You realize you are using logical fallacies to explain why you aren't using logical fallacies right?

[Muloghonto]

Just now, TellTheTruth said:

You realize you are using logical fallacies to explain why you aren't using logical fallacies right?

There are no logical fallacies from my part. Only obfuscation from yours. You are yet to explain to us, how is a party democratic,if its voting process literally gives one vote 900x the weight of another vote. you are also yet to explain to us what are the other safeguards possible to voter integrity, if not voterID. You are also to explain to us, what justifies US exceptionalism in having a non linear and non standardised ballot process. 

These are all objective facts, not fallacies you are trying to obfuscate. 

[TellTheTruth]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There are no logical fallacies from my part. Only obfuscation from yours. You are yet to explain to us, how is a party democratic,if its voting process literally gives one vote 900x the weight of another vote. you are also yet to explain to us what are the other safeguards possible to voter integrity, if not voterID. You are also to explain to us, what justifies US exceptionalism in having a non linear and non standardised ballot process. 

These are all objective facts, not fallacies you are trying to obfuscate. 

 

Its pointless to debate someone that fundamentally doesn't understand what logical fallacy or a fact is.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, TellTheTruth said:

 

Its pointless to debate someone that fundamentally doesn't understand what logical fallacy or a fact is.

Correct. You clearly do not understand what facts and logical fallacies are. 

But i dont expect these to be answered by democrat voters/supporters or those who argue yankee exceptionalism to cover for yankee primtivism.

 

[TellTheTruth]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Correct. You clearly do not understand what facts and logical fallacies are. 

But i dont expect these to be answered by democrat voters/supporters or those who argue yankee exceptionalism to cover for yankee primtivism.

 

 

You clearly aren't looking for answers in the way you premise your remarks with the use of logical Fallacies sprinkled in with personal attacks as the foundation of your opinions. Dont take my word for but ask other people with a better understanding of critical thinking and logic and they will all agree with me.  I've seen a few of your posts and you seem to be looking for ways to argue in a emotional way which isnt  good for your mental health.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, TellTheTruth said:

 

You clearly aren't looking for answers in the way you premise your remarks with the use of logical Fallacies sprinkled in with personal attacks as the foundation of your opinions. Dont take my word for but ask other people with a better understanding of critical thinking and logic and they will all agree with me.  I've seen a few of your posts and you seem to be looking for ways to argue in a emotional way which isnt  good for your mental health.

 

There are no logical fallacies in my statements, as i have explained and you have been unable to counter. There are also no personal attacks- an institution is not a person. Attacking a political party/country is by definition not a personal attack. 

The only one invoking emotion is you and if you think a MSc in math needs validation on logic from others, you are sorely mistaken. So far all you have done is obfuscate and not actually demonstrate your objections to be valid. 

Saying 'there are other means' and not stating what they are, is by definition, obfuscation.

 

in fact you are guilty of DARVO, since your post is all personal attack on me without a single counter to my arguments. 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2024 by Muloghonto

[TellTheTruth]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

There are no logical fallacies in my statements, as i have explained and you have been unable to counter. There are also no personal attacks- an institution is not a person. Attacking a political party/country is by definition not a personal attack. 

The only one invoking emotion is you and if you think a MSc in math needs validation on logic from others, you are sorely mistaken. So far all you have done is obfuscate and not actually demonstrate your objections to be valid. 

Saying 'there are other means' and not stating what they are, is by definition, obfuscation.

 

in fact you are guilty of DARVO, since your post is all personal attack on me without a single counter to my arguments. 

 

 

 

come on man, you must be able to see the logical fallacies in just this post alone.