Is everyone seeing the pattern of how he is taking basically every statement I make, turning it into the most extreme or absolutist form of it he interprets, then applying it to me as if I should defend his interpretation of it? This is also known as a straw man logical fallacy. You don't have to be goth to be dressed in black, no, but are you going to tell me you regularly see groups of 4-5 men all dressed in black walking in single file lines casually in your daily life? The point is it is odd and you are trying to pretend it is totally normal with zero explanation other than the witnesses imagined everything.

Yes, the woman in the parking lot, two different witnesses, two different statements. The only person conflating the two is you. Again, you have no explanation for what an officer could possibly be shooting at from the parking lot when the source of fire was reportedly from the hotel hundreds of yards away from an elevated position. I never said it was "good evidence" of anything, simply contradictory evidence to the official narrative, among many contradictory bits of evidence in this case. Again, what is it about discussing these events and the conflicting information that upsets you so much you compulsively feel the need to end discussion about it? Cognitive dissonance much? Of course not, and everyone else is wrong for having discussions outside of the ideas you approve of. This is certainly not a symptom of you struggling with your own inability to integrate conflicting information and everything that implies.

Two credible sources I've quoted in the last few pages:

1. Yanoff, Myron; Duker, Jay S. (2009). Ophthalmology 3rd Edition. MOSBY Elsevier. ISBN 978-0444511416.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica.

I also search for a real DEX which will remain DEX, hope we can have more in future. Anyway someone test Switchdex and all is ok, and what coins are listed there and they plan to list all top coins? And what is the official link?

Translation: His arguments lead to conclusions that falsify what I have arbitrarily and subjectively defined as "truth" so I am going to assume he is wrong about everything and stop thinking about his arguments.

Forkdelta and Etherdelta are the two most reputable decentralized exchanges in this market because every transaction needs to be verified, so the scam in these 2 exchanges is impossible. I have been using it for the past 2 years and until now I still use it because it is much safer than other decentralized exchanges. Maybe IDEX is more convenient to trade but recently they are forced KYC traders so those who do not like KYC will soon return to the world 2 leading decentralized exchanges.

So your theory is they were a bunch of goths running in a group? One witness saw some one shooting, yes. As I already explained, the fire was coming from high up in the hotel. Your claim is it was a cop the witness saw. What was the cop firing at if the fire was hundreds of yards away from an unidentified elevated position? Police aren't allowed to fire on a target they can't identify for safety and liability reasons. Once again, two guys plotting to rob a 7-11 is a conspiracy. It is a legal terminology, and conspiracies happen every day. Weak minded people like you who rage out over anyone even having a discussion of alternative narratives LOVE to use that word as a cudgel in an attempt to dismiss anything that upsets their sensitive state and give them a bad case of cognitive dissonance. Just perhaps, the problem is internal.

Humans cannot be “ideal” anything. We can’t be ideal parents or ideal employees. We cannot be ideal athletes or ideal mathematicians.

We may not be able to achieve perfection but we can approximate it to the best of our ability. Yes we are guaranteed to fall short but to the degree we succeed everyone benefits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg

Hmm....

It is known via logical deduction. If ideal rational thinkers are faced with a symmetrical situation and reasoning alone is the ultimate justification they will reach identical conclusions.

This must be true if reasoning is objective as arithmetic is.


I agree we cannot be ideal rational thinkers. Our biological limitations alone guarantee that. But that does not mean we should not try. Indeed it would be idiotic not to try.

C.S. Lewis wrote a nice discussion on this point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ&t=160s


Not sure I am following you here. My arguments are simple logic that anyone is capable of following. What evidence are you looking for?


Ha ha I doubt the subtlety was intentional but that was funny.

From the statement in the OP "When she reached the parking lot, she saw a person whom she did not believe was an officer with an automatic powered rifle firing his gun".

From the statement in the link: "We ran through a back door and as we turned to the right, we saw about 4-5 that looked middle-eastern men walking in a single file line dressed in all black + last person in the back had a shoulder strap on AR-15."

Seems like an oddly specific thing to hallucinate a specific type of rifle, and 4 to 5 men dressed in black. Also if some one is shooting it is a pretty clear thing too. Police wouldn't have been firing return fire up into the hotel because it would be unsafe. Besides, my "REKT" was bigger and redder than yours so I win by default anyway.

So they need to be shooting to operate as a group? What? If this evidence is so meaningless, tell me, why is the fact that it is simply being discussed clearly upset you so much?
REKT!

I didn't say there were few media reports, I said the media was QUICK to bury it. Quick is a measure of time, not quantity, therefore the fact that you saw "plenty of news about it" is irrelevant to my statement. Multiple witnesses reported this team of people operating as a group. Your quotes are just reiterations of your initial premise which I already addressed, twice.

BTW "REKT"? You mean like the last time you said I was "REKT" then ran away without a reply? What are you a hairless boy on CS GO? Are you going to scream you fucked my mom in a cracking voice now? Did you ever ask yourself why you are so upset over this discussion taking place? Great arguments again Captain Cognitive Dissonance.

First of all, you are just repeating your poor argument from before that I already addressed. Seconds of all, you are mischaracterizing the statement. It is common for people to MISIDENTIFY the identity of individuals they witnessed. It is not common for people to imagine they saw people that never existed to begin with. The statement is referring to false identification, not imagining non-existent people. If your argument was about mistaken identity you might have a point, but you are projecting your own meaning on to words the authors never intended to imply. According to science huh? Now you speak for the field of science? How exactly does the fact that you have seen "plenty of news" invalidate witness testimony? Do you ever wonder why you are so hostile over anyone asking questions about a mass murder? It couldn't be cognitive dissonance could it?

Here is what the AI researcher Douglas Hofstadter wrote on the topic. The answer to your question is in the realization that reasoning is not subjective.

“You might feel that each person is completely unique and therefore that no one can be relied on as a predictor of how other people will act, especially in an intensely dilemmatic situation. There is more to the story, however.

Any number of ideal rational thinkers faced with the same situation and undergoing similar throes of reasoning agony will necessarily come up with the identical answer eventually, so long as reasoning alone is the ultimate justification for their conclusion. Otherwise reasoning would be subjective, not objective as arithmetic is. A conclusion reached by reasoning would be a matter of preference, not of necessity. Now some people may believe this of reasoning, but rational thinkers understand that a valid argument must be universally compelling, otherwise it is simply not a valid argument.

If you’ll grant this, then you are 90% of the way. All you need ask now is which world is better for the individual rational thinker: (one with thinkers all cooperating or all defecting)
...
Since I am typical, cooperating must be preferred by all rational thinkers. So I’ll cooperate.” Another way of stating it, making it sound weirder, is this: “If I choose cooperation, then everyone will choose cooperation.”
...
“We live in a world filled with opposing belief systems so similar as to be nearly interchangeable, yet whose adherents are blind to that symmetry. This description applies not only to myriad small, conflicts in the world but also to the colossal... Yet the recognition of symmetry - in short, the sanity - has not yet come. In fact, the insanity seems only to grow, rather than be supplanted by sanity. What has an intelligent species like our own done to get itself into this horrible dilemma? What can it do to get itself out? Are we all helpless as we watch this spectacle unfold, or does the answer lie, for each one of us, in recognition of our own typicality, and in small steps taken on an individual level toward sanity?”
...
“To many people, this sounds like a belief in voodoo or sympathetic magic, a vision of a universe permeated by tenuous threads of synchronicity, conveying thoughts from mind to mind like pneumatic tubes carrying messages across Paris, and making people resonate to a secret harmony. Nothing could be further from the truth. This solution depends in no way on telepathy or bizarre forms of causality. It’s just that the statement “I’ll choose C and then everyone will”, though entirely correct, is somewhat misleadingly phrased. It involves the word “choice”, which is incompatible with the compelling quality of logic. Schoolchildren do not choose what 507 divided by 13 is; they figure it out. Analogously, my letter really did not allow choice; it demanded reasoning. Thus, a better way to phrase the “voodoo” statement would be this: “If reasoning guides me to say C, then, as I am no different from anyone else as far as rational thinking is concerned, it will guide everyone to say C.””