>>513509983you are the one not applying the standard you've invoked,
namely critical thought
if you read my post history
you can see that i worded what i thought carefully
as possibilities, not absolutes,
it was only when trying to engage with you and
the other interlocutors and trying to be gracious
with you and "extend an intellectual olive branch"
that you and your ilk attempted to harangue me
with "gotchas" while only doing hyper skepticism
never once engaging with any idea being presented
framing my "emotional state as anger"
just betrays your own disingenuous motives
and serves as evidence for your dishonest engagement
and explains why you've so stubbornly refused
under the guise of "educating anon about critical thought"
(which you didn't use one time in the thread on your own hyper skepticism)