>>14
a piece of paper that says a name by itself is not proof, there needs to be a leap of faith to assume that name on that paper is your name for your identity, and say your name's "Anonymous" and you see other people with the same name yet you can't "prove" that you're a specific Anonymous but you know which Anonymous is you that you've posted as, even having IDs doesn't help via proxies and VPN, but how can one be certain that the same being that posted with one ID is the same as another with the same ID on the other side of the screen. Assumptions, or presuppositions are made to make any conclusions.

Aristotle's Trivium insists that people can trust in the Trivium, circular reasoning, Trusting in one's capability to reason through reason to reason they can trust in their reasoning of that reason is going in circles yet again.

Concerning the whole mom thing, people can simply change their minds, their opinions towards others despite whatever "proof" that shows otherwise observed in the past. Nobody can deductively know as to if you hate your mom or not in every single instance you say that you do. Qualia (watch le vsauce vid of it) can't be properly conveyed through language so again, people would have to assume that what you say is true, and if they say that it's false, they are liars, and they have no way to "prove" that they are not lying of something that isn't based solely in past statistical data which only shows trends, not making 100% claims as to if they really hate their mom or not. A lie detector detects subtle bodily "metadata" of what could be inductive evidence, but inductive anything has no absolutes in its claims, so to deny that someone does not hate their mom in that instance is as stupid as claiming their claim is false (not to be confused with "probably" false or any gray area).