Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:03 am
The worst was falsely claiming that a thread you started was just about discussing juvenile diabetes after you changed your thread title and some of your posts.
Sir, it's the same thing. I maintain that feminism is contributing to the increasing incidence of childhood diabetes, the evidence is overwhelming for that. I changed the title so more people would read the thread. You are starting to sound like Marcus who sees things that are not there.
The other thread was never intended to be about single men or my romantic life.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 12:17 am
No, you're still demonstrating either that you don't understand the paper or you don't understand what it means for something to be relevant to something else. The paper discusses a different subject and a different causal chain than I suggested in my comment. It's not a conclusion they reached from evidence -- its an acknowledgment that they were measuring correlations and did not attempt to address causation. Yet you keep treating the fact that it was said by "researchers" in a published paper makes the sentence somehow authoritative when it comes to the causal chain I suggested. It doesn't. Referring at all to the study is complete non-sequitur. Not only that the reverse causation you mentioned doesn't even correctly refer to either my suggested chain or the papers. I said nothing about more computer gaming. The paper says nothing about "having no friend."
I understand the paper, I'm
not claiming the paper addresses causation. Nobody knows the cause and I never claimed to know.
"reduced sociability" can mean many things, including "having no friends". I don't understand why you can't admit you made a mistake.
You can accuse me of the appeal to authority fallacy, but you can't accuse me of misunderstanding the paper.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:49 pm
Do you see how you are demanding that others be precise with their language but giving yourself a complete pass? The fact that we can all read the paper doesn't excuse you making false representations about the paper. Your excuse simply doesn't fly.
Going back to my comment, "Women are more likely to feel lonely." If I would've said, "Women are more likely to SAY they feel lonely", Marcus would've accused me of sexism and not believing women. Marcus is doing everything she can to make me look misogynist.
I don't think you should make a big deal about not being very precise with the wording when I'm simply responding to a troll.
Also, keep in mind that I'm multitasking most of the time, so I'll make mistakes sometimes, but it doesn't mean I'm misunderstanding the papers.
It is not possible to take you seriously because you only engage in childish insults. You have the habit of seeing sexism where there is none. Thank goodness nobody is taking you seriously. 
