Red truths do not need any evidence, that's the first rule that was told about them. It doesn't matter if you can't even think of a way to prove they are true.
It is also irrelevant whether a red truth is relevant or not.
A red truth is simply the truth, that's all that was said and that's all that mattered. Why it has to be relevant now?
there is indeed a difference between
Quote:
|
"that guy is an idiot" and "that guy is unlikely to have come up with a complicated extortion scheme because he is an idiot."
|
The first is a statement, the second express an estimation. "You are incompetent" is more keen to "you are an idiot" than to your second example.
I don't see in your argument anything that even logically can hint that "you are incompenet" is to be seen as a mere opinion except for the fact that's how you see it.
And that's the problem with your idea that it is possible to state in red a mere opinion. Who would then decide which is "obviously" an opinion and which is a statement? You?
That's just your opinion. An opinion that I obviously don't agree with.
You see where that leads to? Endless repetition of moves. You say that this red is just an opinion and I say it's not, there is no way to reach a definitive conclusion and the game just breaks. So what was the point of red truths again? I thought they were created to
prevent such an occurence.
If they fail at that, they might as well do not exist.