rationalskepticism.org

Frozenworld wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Yes the first pitch. That's what I was getting at.

The guy with the glasses who comes after that first pitch basically destroys it in one sentence.

What sentence?

My first problem with the question is that it kind of suggests that you've got a yes or no answer here. Do our senses radically limit our understanding of how things really are or not? But I want to ask this: where can one stand in order to answer this question, in order to adjudicate it, between a yes or no answer or indeed anything in between?

Which bring us back to the point that's been made to you many times throughout this thread, but which you're just not in the slightest bit interested in processing.

Frozenworld wrote:
What about the two links? The points they listed?

I've responded to that - please stop JAQing off and start engaging in good faith.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off)... shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

If you want to erect a postulate, then the onus is on you to show why it's valid - it's not on me to discern for you, in the absence of any context, what points you think are valid and then try to contend them. This is clearly absurd, and you've been doing it all along. I'll be honest, initially I thought it was because you were a bit thick. But it's becoming clear that this isn't the reason here really, what's actually happening is that you're not engaging in any level of honest discourse. In reality, instead of being here as an interested party wondering whether X is potentially valid, you're actually a proponent of X that doesn't want to do the hard work of establishing their beliefs, so instead tries to get everyone else to run around responding to non-points that you've not actually established as credible in the first instance. So the ball is now in your court. Engage in good faith discussion, or you'll just net responses that remain at the level of bad faith discourse. In fact, I'll make sure of it.