Then modify his statement accordingly. Your issue with Keynes's quote is that he used the word fact in a way that indicates that it can be changed. But accordin

Then modify his statement accordingly. Your issue with Keynes's quote is that he used the word fact in a way that indicates that it can be changed. But according to you, it can. But also according to you, they can also be "time-constrained". But the general thrust of his point remains. When the time constraints of a fact elapse and allow a new fact to replace the old fact, he changes his position. New information allows for new opinions. Arguing about the definitions of words to score points is meaningless pedantry. You don't want to argue the actual point, that you should be able to change your mind when situations change or you learn new information. Because doing so would make you look like you're just stubborn and easily led. But for some reason, you can't agree with the quote because then you'd be granting something to the person you're currently debating with. Or to the side of the debate you agree with, seeing as we're dealing with multiple responders. But all of this is to discuss the credibility of the Dogecoin founder. And that's a fair discussion to have, because his credibility and motives are very much relevant to why he should have certain opinions. But now it seems the entire discussion is being done a very meta level. Where we're no longer talking about his qualifications, his stake in the success or failure of crypto, his reasons for making statements, etc. No, now we're discussing the dictionary definition of "fact".