The innocence project data only applies to a very specific kind of case with a very long sentence. It's a start but it's not much.

And I have never redefined a term. Don't confuse disagreement with dishonesty.

I don't know why you're so offended at me using "if" occasionally. You keep trying to force me to use specific numbers even after I say I don't have specific numbers. That's not good faith on your part.

> demand evidence from others whilst providing none yourself

Dude. I made one demand for evidence. At the very start. In a comment where I made no claims.

I have made no demands for evidence since then, just one reminder that's where we started when you bugged me about evidence.

Even if that would make my later comments hypocritical, my original comment wasn't.

I need evidence and so do you.

> Now you claim your speculation "should not be rejected for lack of citations" whilst having opened by demanding exactly that from me. That's not intellectual honesty, that's having it both ways.

What do you think is dishonest?

I never rejected your argument for lack of evidence.

I don't want either argument rejected until we get more evidence.

-

And yeah I'm pretty done too. Your comments are full of false narratives about what I'm saying.

Also I stated a very clear position at the start, then you threw a big pile of half-related things at me. It's not my fault you think I don't have a "clear position", because every time I try to focus and state one, you start talking about something else.