Is there another time in your life where this happened, where you were confident something was false without knowing the real answer?
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.
then all you deserve now is a proper proof that I'm a real human being.
You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).
You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.
Incorrect. It is YOUR responsibility to not use them in the first place.
Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.
A literal, parenthetical, non-sequitur in action.
You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.
In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.
You are not telling me I am acting like one. You are directly questioning whether I am
They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.
one case lament that you have to assume that I am.
The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.
Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic
This is your doing, by continuing to bring up the fact that you "doubt" that I am a real human being.
If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off
I'm more interested in ensuring I'm not speaking with someone who continues to make baseless accusations. You are failing here.
(which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring)
When you decide to use tangent, distraction, and red herrings It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?
The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot.
But you are not a bot. That isn't under question. However, you are deciding to question whether I am. I don't wish to converse with someone who will hold baseless assumptions, so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.
Part of growing up is recognizing and taking responsibility for your actions. Don't shirk it - it's for your benefit!
Even if it were true that my criticisms of your bot-like actions/behavior were a distraction from the conversation (which they were not, or at least certainly not intended as) it was YOUR choice to derail and entirely focus the subsequent conversation on those minor comments. If it is important to you, as it is to me, to keep the conversation on topic - then you have to learn how to suppress and/or ignore such distractions. "They started it" is not a valid defense on the playground, or in a conversation for the exact same reasons!
with someone who continues to make baseless accusations
If only they were baseless! We could have skipped this whole waste of time. It is because they are not baseless that this utter waste of breath is transpiring.
It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?
As i've said - i explicitly made such comments because of my respect for the conversation. But even if that were not the case, and i was intentionally trying to derail and disrespect the conversation - that is your excuse for so devotedly helping me to do that? Again, such "they started it" "logic" is embarrassingly childish and best avoided.
You would respect the conversation and seek to keep it on topic merely because you choose to, and for no other reason. Don't ever let the bad habits and actions of others compel you to be worse and stoop to their level! When you let that happen, you become lesser; you become like your enemy.
But you are not a bot.
Perhaps. Or perhaps i am not a bot now, but will be in the near future. As the spooks say : trust, but verify.
That isn't under question
It must always be, sadly. When an online entity exhibits bot like behavior, concluding that they are or may be a bot is completely prudent and warranted.
However, you are deciding to question whether I am
Based on you actions, yes! If you wish to avoid such accusation in the future, then you must work to avoid their behavior and to engage in behavior which they cannot emulate.
so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.
I think you are being far too sensitive about all this. I receive so many routine baseless accusations online that perhaps i have become a bit callous regarding it, but i am doubtful that this is your first experience with such things if you've spent any significant time on online forums.
As for "taking me seriously", that is completely up to you. I do not seek to manipulate (aka convince) you in any way; quite the opposite in fact. I do my utmost to be both earnest and honest, but that will, can, and should only become evident to you through repeated interaction and demonstration. Even then, such things can change at the drop of a hat and those who deserved to be taken seriously in the past can suddenly stop being worthy (and vice versa, but that is quite a bit more rare).
Replying to https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7RBNw30ke (sadly thread limit was reached :()
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
But it can contribute to obesity.
Not typically, no.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
Meaning there are instances when it can
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
Continued from https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7SQHmaQAT due to reaching thread limit - again! Yet another good reason not to let tangent derail conversations from their specific topic. Hopefully something you can recognize and work on ;)
It is meant to. I recognize that you are not allowing it to, and are using it as an excuse to further derail and avoid the actual conversation. You should stop that.
You are being far too sensitive about this. If you aren't a bot, then laugh such baseless accusations off and work on avoiding bot like behavior in the future (which i explicitly outline in my comments).
You can't prove you are a real human being any other way in this forum.
Not if you want the conversation to stay on topic. If you want the conversation to stay on topic, as i do, then it is your responsibility to work towards ensuring that (which includes ignoring/suppressing tangent, distraction, and red herring). If you don't want the conversation to stay on topic, then just keep doing what you're doing - but don't delude yourself into believing the lie that you want the conversation to stay on topic or continue.
You don't seem to understand. The fact is, you could be a bot. The fact is, i could be a bot. That isn't going to change. It is just something you are going to have to come to terms with. It is a facet of the technological hellscape we inhabit. There is nothing we can do about it - but we can avoid exhibiting the traits/habits of bots as well as engage in meaningful conversation and other actions that they simply cannot perform.
In the meantime, try not to take any offense. None is intended.
They are effectively one and the same. I am telling you that i am getting closer to concluding you are bot because of the actions which i outline explicitly in the comments which make you appear that way. I am always questioning wether or not you are a bot, and always will be. I highly recommend you do the same with any online discourse - it is the prudent thing to do.
The lament is likewise omnipresent. I would be happier if this hellscape did not involve bots, and there was no possibility that you were one. Alas, reality does not allow it.
This is your doing, by continuing to bring up the fact that you "doubt" that I am a real human being.
I'm more interested in ensuring I'm not speaking with someone who continues to make baseless accusations. You are failing here.
When you decide to use tangent, distraction, and red herrings It shows you do not respect the conversation, so why would I?
But you are not a bot. That isn't under question. However, you are deciding to question whether I am. I don't wish to converse with someone who will hold baseless assumptions, so I would be more interested in directly addressing that before I would take what you say seriously.
Part of growing up is recognizing and taking responsibility for your actions. Don't shirk it - it's for your benefit!
Even if it were true that my criticisms of your bot-like actions/behavior were a distraction from the conversation (which they were not, or at least certainly not intended as) it was YOUR choice to derail and entirely focus the subsequent conversation on those minor comments. If it is important to you, as it is to me, to keep the conversation on topic - then you have to learn how to suppress and/or ignore such distractions. "They started it" is not a valid defense on the playground, or in a conversation for the exact same reasons!
If only they were baseless! We could have skipped this whole waste of time. It is because they are not baseless that this utter waste of breath is transpiring.
As i've said - i explicitly made such comments because of my respect for the conversation. But even if that were not the case, and i was intentionally trying to derail and disrespect the conversation - that is your excuse for so devotedly helping me to do that? Again, such "they started it" "logic" is embarrassingly childish and best avoided.
You would respect the conversation and seek to keep it on topic merely because you choose to, and for no other reason. Don't ever let the bad habits and actions of others compel you to be worse and stoop to their level! When you let that happen, you become lesser; you become like your enemy.
Perhaps. Or perhaps i am not a bot now, but will be in the near future. As the spooks say : trust, but verify.
It must always be, sadly. When an online entity exhibits bot like behavior, concluding that they are or may be a bot is completely prudent and warranted.
Based on you actions, yes! If you wish to avoid such accusation in the future, then you must work to avoid their behavior and to engage in behavior which they cannot emulate.
I think you are being far too sensitive about all this. I receive so many routine baseless accusations online that perhaps i have become a bit callous regarding it, but i am doubtful that this is your first experience with such things if you've spent any significant time on online forums.
As for "taking me seriously", that is completely up to you. I do not seek to manipulate (aka convince) you in any way; quite the opposite in fact. I do my utmost to be both earnest and honest, but that will, can, and should only become evident to you through repeated interaction and demonstration. Even then, such things can change at the drop of a hat and those who deserved to be taken seriously in the past can suddenly stop being worthy (and vice versa, but that is quite a bit more rare).