[throwawaywego]

It is a restate of the conspiratorial claim in my first post. One is justified to say anything one pleases, but it could still be a detraction or pointless speculation: "News flash: Alice Zhang has long hair. Women frequently have long hair. But, Bobby Joe is a surfer dude, and surfer dudes like long hair and frequently have long hair too. I haven't seen Bobby yet, or saw a photo of him, but I relevantly pose that I am justified in saying -- using my a priori knowledge of surfer dudes -- that Bobby, a man, likely has long hair too. My evidence is that Bobby, being a surfer dude, has an incentive to like long hair. I am not contradicting that Alice does not have long hair, just complementing the discussion with extensively documented history of surfer dudes and the likelihood of Bobby's hair length."

[guerrilla]

> One is justified to say anything one pleases

One is not justified in belieiving anything one pleases. There are things which are justified and things which are not and a coherent epistemology distinguishes between the two.

[elefanten]

Can you describe your coherent epistemology? The one that leads you to believe a throughly context-free, slapdash list of low-quality wiki text spanning hundreds of topics over hundreds of years counts as a citable piece of evidence for... anything really?

[guerrilla]

> that leads you to believe

It doesn't. It's just a summary, akin to a comment.

> evidence for

It wasn't intended to be evidnence for anything but a reminder of the pattern of behavior that the US is throughoughly documented (elsewhere) to have engaged in over the years.