My claims are not that remarkable, and therefore your certainty that I'm lying is not justifiable.
Whether something is "remarkable" or not is not relevant. All that is relevant is, is there evidence to bolster your claim? Is that evidence contradicted by competing evidence? Without evidence, I have no reason to assume you are telling the truth or are anything more than another Internet Tough Guy.
At least one person in two hundred is capable of the things I claim. Got that?
How did you determine that statistic? What polling method did you use? What was the pool and the population? What is your certainty? A 95% +/- 4%?
All the important implications, including the veracity of my sweeping generalizations, follows from the existence of a class of people who are capable of doing the things I claim to be capable of.
A class I have yet to see evidence of, which only exists by your assertion.
no subject
Whether something is "remarkable" or not is not relevant. All that is relevant is, is there evidence to bolster your claim? Is that evidence contradicted by competing evidence? Without evidence, I have no reason to assume you are telling the truth or are anything more than another Internet Tough Guy.
At least one person in two hundred is capable of the things I claim. Got that?
How did you determine that statistic?
What polling method did you use? What was the pool and the population?
What is your certainty? A 95% +/- 4%?
All the important implications, including the veracity of my sweeping generalizations, follows from the existence of a class of people who are capable of doing the things I claim to be capable of.
A class I have yet to see evidence of, which only exists by your assertion.