> The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions.
I absolutely love this comment, because it is literally and necessarily an opinion, but it explicitly claims that it is a fact.
This is what I was anticipating when I said: "The effect these questions have on even the very best minds is amazing, I wonder what will happen here..."
> The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions".
This one's great too - let me guess, you believe that in "the non-question parts, reveals the true nature" it is solely the words themselves doing the "revealing", am I right? Or, would you prefer to maybe not discuss that topic in detail? :)
> Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device.
It is also true, and some might even say mean.
> It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro".
Yup, and this is what keeps your culture permanently locked into Maya: the world as dream (like above where you literally can't distinguish between the necessarily subjective and objective - and this is under asynchronous conditions, imagine how you'd perform in realtime).
> The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot.
lol, what does this even mean?
By the way: Russell's Teapot is not a proof, but it certainly may appear as such to those afflicted by Normative Cognition.