Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

So say something you think is true, then, and we'll examine it.

Sure, np.  Truth is what follows when valid arguments are applied to sound propositions.  Let's examine that, lol.  

. . .

Try an example.

You use the word "really" like it means something to you.  I'm guessing it means that it conforms to your hunches about which of your experiences represet reality.

It's a word we use to indicate truth status, you're familiar, I assume?  Is this where we're at now,  you're bitching about the word really?  Take it up with webster.

I question your use of the word, because you seem to be using it about things which you cannot establish actually to represent truth.

Context isn't irrelevant to me, as I already told you, it's simply not an excuse.  The truth of my metaphysical claims, whatever they are, however, is irrelevant.  No amount of me being wrong about some metaphysical claim  will salvage equivocations.  Go find an actual paradox and stop bullshitting yourself about a video game.

Dude, your entire world view is a metaphysical claim. However, it is also context-dependent. Therefore you hold an unholdable position, and you must mediate it with bullshit terms like "weight of evidence," and you pretend that those mediators mean more than "I can't prove it, but I will still assert it."