No, what you said was that 'conspiracy theorists' lack common sense and that this is why they are subjected to what you present as critical shortcomings. It was the angle you chose to support your argument. Then when you said today that ““Common sense" is for when people agree with your prejudices. “Common sense” isn’t a method — it’s just your personal intuition dressed up as authority", you confirmed that 'conspiracy theorists' do in fact have common sense, but that it is merely a construct they use. This is an insurmountable contradiction and nothing else. I have a very good memory and the search function allows me to find your contradictions in a few seconds. Here is another example: Here you contend that Occam's Razor, i.e. the simplest explanation, disproves the flat Earth theory. Yet today, in the following post, you claimed that the simplest explanation actually does support the flat Earth theory, but that it is invalidated by convoluted third-party explanations: The common denominator in these glaring, insurmountable contradictions is your irrepressible desire to "win" the argument. As I am of a charitable nature, I hereby declare you the winner, kwilco.
Create an account or sign in to comment