[kelseyfrog]

Simply state the evidentiary threshold that would change your mind and I'll be happy to provide it. I've been down this dialog tree so many times before.

Also be happy to remind you to have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. :)

[yucky]

You haven't provided any evidence at all. So more than zero would be a start.

[kelseyfrog]

Politics is a critical lens with which to view the world. That's what I mean when I say everything is political. Politicization is a process. Do you wish for me to go back ad infinitum with you giving me topics, and I attempt to politicize each one? I'm guessing here that is a waste of your time and mine because we'll be arguing whether I'm sufficiently politicizing each topic to reach your standard. That's what I mean when I ask for your evidentiary standard.

[yucky]

You're just restating the same thing you already said, without providing any evidence. You're stating a belief, no different than "God is in everything" or "God is everywhere". It's an empty tautology, if everything is political, then the word is without meaning.

So "God is everywhere" is also a lens with which to view the world. It's based on the same amount of evidence.

[kelseyfrog]

You can look at anything scientifically, therefore science has no meaning. At this point you're arguing just to argue.

[yucky]

See above.

[kelseyfrog]

You can just say you don't have an evidentiary threshold. No one is going to hold it against you. It just means no one will want to engage with you because you're implicitly admitting that you didn't reason your way into your position so there's no way to reason you out of one.