> Actually, I am the one asking YOU!

I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me.

However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread.

And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are explicit and accurate about how each of us conducts ourselves in the conversation (ie: if one of us does not answer specific questions, acknowledge that simply and unequivocally).

And if you were implicitly posing "Are things always as they seem?" to me, my answer is: no, things are not always as they seem. In fact, I argue that they are almost always not what they seem, and that this is necessarily the case due to the physical architecture of the mind/reality, plus a whole bunch of other scientifically uncontroversial reasons.

> As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person...

We are discussing an object level matter - it is possible that you do not have bias on this matter, but that you personally perceive yourself to be unbiased is not convincing, and is certainly subject to a variety of possible well known phenomenon in psychology/etc.

At the very least, I think the most epistemically sound stance is that it is not known whether you or I have some bias, or the degree to which each of us is biased. After all, science has a fair amount of depth in this realm and if you take their findings even partially seriously, that there is at least some uncertainty seems highly certain.

> ...and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs.

I am less interested in being persuasive than I am in being correct. Actually, I have enough experience in this domain that I believe it may not be possible to convince certain people of certain things, at least on current communication platforms like this one, in cultures like this one. I think this could change with more sophisticated platforms and cultures, but such things are not the purpose or goal of HN (dang has been explicit about this).

> You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary.

As I already asked you (and you did not answer): "Are things always as they seem?"

I respectfully challenge you to answer this question.

> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

Ah, "solipsism", color me not shocked at all that this idea manifested in the mind of someone I am having this type of conversation with.

Do you believe that I am a solipsist, or that the ideas I have written here are fundamentally and necessarily solipsistic?

> Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.

The first burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion - I challenged the assertion above, no response has appeared thus far.

As for making a case, consider this assertion:

>> He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.

Is this not mind reading? Or at the very least, stating one's opinions/inferences in the form of facts?

And if this is ok, then should Mr. Greenwald not get a free pass on the very same basis?