everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. I read your post as: "X is the ca

everything you're rebutting is actually in agreement with your rebuttal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. I read your post as: "X is the case, arguments for not-X are anecdata, we have to take not-X on trust, nobody knows if X or not-X but I'm suspicious of not-X" I apologise if that's not what you are trying to say.