I mean, he is, but I don't think it's fair to say that he doesn't have logical support for his statements.

What? Honestly, you really need to work on your bantz.

If you don't understand why your inability to be critical of (or, you know, actually read) your sources doesn't pertain to a discussion regarding what should be considered factual statements about political topics, that's not a diversion on my end.
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=13702&p=421707#p421707


I don't know what you intended for this sentence to convey, but it failed to be understood. I think you're accusing me of being hypocritical because I argue against you claiming I'm moving the goalpoast, because I didn't debase the popular vote argument in the sentence preceding the one in which I am debasing the popular vote argument. It's also possible that you claim I am hypocritical because I framed something as irrelevant, and you believe one of my tangents were irrelevant to the discussion. Which still seems to rely on the assumption that I moved the goalpost at some point, because I only made an effort to discredit the popular votes argument in response to you supporting it, and not in response to the petition itself.

You're just asking me to make an appeal to popularity here, and his .5 million subs.

I'll come back to you when I discover what it's like not being apathetic.

I don't know whether to actually call you illiterate or intellectually dishonest beyond any suspension of disbelief, when you so easily glosses over all the quotes following said statement. But let me spell it out more clearly.


If you don't understand the contradiction in stating that there are "few if any documentation of animals being inherently repulsed" and citing an article that explicitly states that females monkeys reject attempts at incest unless they are terrified, then you might as well go and apply for a job at McDonalds right now. It even contains the sentence "Humans and other animals, she said, likely evolved ways to detect and avoid mating with their close relatives." Is it alright for me to be disillusioned with your statement? Do you understand how absolutely ridiculous you are being?

The popular vote being both irrelevant to the petition, and a poor proposition in general, are not at odds with each other. At least not until you demonstrate how, in a way that is possible to understand, not one in which I am arguing guesswork.

They sure dwindle every day.
I don't know if you say blatantly false things and assume they are true, or just expect them to not be challenged.

Not sure where appeal to authority comes from. I am outright telling you the logical fallacy I am using in the post you are responding to. I can do that, because you made a baseless claim about what people believe about him. Honestly, at this point, please tell me you are just trolling.

"See further down the article" without explaining is not a retort.

I'm pretty sure you're going to drive any argument regarding evolutionary superiority and inferiority into semantics (also, why does searching that term end in the most bigoted results conceivable. I mean, damn son.) Regardless, I am going to put forward the context I used it in, and then you can claim my use of it is dumb if you so choose, and then that will be that.
Evolution is a process in which species preserve and discard traits according to which ones enable survival. Positive traits are more likely to be passed on, and negative traits are less likely to be passed on, which slowly shapes the species by weeding out undesirable attributes and retaining positive ones. From this standpoint, a trait is evolutionary inferior if it harms a species' chance of survival. It is not a claim that it is inferior at evolving (whatever that would mean), but rather a statement that it is inferior at surviving in the context of how evolution operates.