Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm asking you to distill it down.  Please stop saying you've done it, and humor me by doing it once more, simply and. . . unequivocally.  I'm not saying you haven't, I'm saying I can't find it, and I'd like you to dumb it down for me.

The product of valid arguments supplied with sound propositions.  

This really isn't an equivocation.

It really is.  

In both cases, I'm using the word "I" to talk about an experiencing agent experiencing stuff.  I do in fact experience a dragon-- you will argue since it's not really really a real dragon, it doesn't count as a dragon at all.  But nevertheless, there it is, and I can see smoke coming out of its mouth.  You seem to think there's the "real" I and the game avatar.

I seem to think that, because there is a "real" you, and an avatar in a video game.

That's fine, but I can pretty easily demonstrate that your "real" life is a virtual experience as well.

Which would be pointless, because it doesn't make me the ingame avatar in question even if true.  You may be an avatar in your own internal game (I certainly think that you are..but I can't prove that, I can't call it true), but that won't make you the avatar in Skyrim.

 There is, for example, no color in the universe.  Apples are, in fact, not "red."  We convert signals from various receptors in our eyes to chemical-electrical signals, process them, and finally, at the end of a chain of billions of discrete physical events, say, "Aha!  I see something red!"  Do you think there is so much difference between photons coming from a high-definition monitor and those coming from say a star?

Red is a wavelength of light.  If a high definition monitor is putting off light in the range of blue and a star is putting off light in the range of red - there's at least that difference between them, regardless of similarity, regardless of the fact that light is made of photons. To put it a simpler way (since you lose your shit when talking about light and photons), cookies and cakes are both made with flour, sugar and eggs...and yet......

No.  The difference is that you think one particular input into your brain represents something really, really, real, and one doesn't.

LOL, I actually think that they both represent something real, but that you're horrible at both rational thought and accurate descriptions....leading to posts like these.

But therein lies the rub-- as many times as you claim I'm equivocating, you are special pleading.  You are insisting on taking your metaphysical view as THE context, rather than A context, and filtering everything through that worldview, despite having no philosophical, evidential or other means to prove that your view is right.  (I'd say "true" but I don't feel like another golden shower right now)

Oh ffs Benny.  "No I'm not, you are!" It doesn't -matter- whether or not my metaphysical views are right. I understand that you'd like to bicker about that, and that's fine, but bring something other than sloppy descriptions and equivocations to do so...that's all I ask. I ask that, because, supposing it were wrong, we won't exactly figure that out by reference to the sorts of things you keep foisting in thread. We won't figure -anything- out that way. That's why I avoid providing you with the means to bicker. It's uninformative and frustrating. Here we arrive at the part where I inform you that this defense of equivocation as context, too, is entirely fallacious. An appeal to hypocrisy. If it were true, you wouldn't exactly have rescued any statement you made.