Like other humans, I am capable of varying my approach according to the situation. If it's something as simple as "this person said X", where I know I'm in the right, and if my interlocutor is someone who is consistently nasty towards me, then yeah, I'm going to bring the hammer down.
Do you have any rebuttals?
There's varying your approach, and then there's acting with immense condescension one moment and then sealioning the next.
The former has more subtlety, so it won't be quite so dramatically obvious you're trolling.
Except I posted the video.
yet one side has the mountain of evidence on it while the other has circumstantial at best evidence.......People (including me) were more than happy to point out how bad creationists arguments were when they used similar to argue against evolution but now the side with the evidence on it in this case is being deemed the one progressives dislike and suddenly "It's just a theory".
Dr Verma's research is based not on the normal kind of sampling studies and question / response stuff in psychology but examination of neural pathways. Kinda hard to fake that kind of data as it's not really open to subjective interpretation when it's counting the number of connections.
It wasn't, though, was it? Nobody actually singled out a particular individual or specific piece of research. Except you.
What theory are you talking about, here, which supposedly has all the evidence for it and yet is being immediately dismissed?
No idea what point you're trying to make here. This doesn't counter the fact that believing one scientific theory and not a different one isn't "inconsistent" and that literally everybody does it.
You're right, they just instantly dismissed it out of hand because "conservative theories!" without even knowing what they were dismissing.
"These people didn't provide an in-depth rebuttal for why they don't subscribe to a particular neuroscientific theory, so they must be doing it out of pure prejudice".
Yes. It was the "based on a conservative theory" bit that tipped me off to that.
Yet the reply chain was after I had pointed out said piece of research specifically.
The Neurological evidence of the synaptic connections showing a binary in adults.
Your argument "Because some-one in Science used Science to support an opposing theory it's not settled" well some Creationists and people who believe the Bible about the age of the world etc are in Science and have used Science methods to try and prove the claims. Does that make said claims also a Science Theory?
The bit that one person said, specifically referring to the conception of gender is a simple binary, and which you've then inflated into proof-positive that multiple people in here write off and and all research from conservatives.
It is true that more people than just myself have been able to ignore your largely irrelevant hyper-focus on a single individual from the video.
None of which indicates gender is a strict and/or exclusive binary.
This isn't even faintly similar to anything I said, or anything that I believe. Shabby strawman.
Shabbiest strawman. Look, I'm not going to address questions if they're rested solely on an absurd description of shit nobody said.
Yes, that was all that person needed to dismiss everything said on the subject, including the science.
But they didn't. You dramatically inflated it, far beyond any resemblance to the original intent.
Nah, I'm going to stick my interpretation unless you can show me evidence to the contrary.
And yet if you wish you wish to argue widening the net to frame all the research in the video as done by conservatives then where's the evidence?
Except it does if you'd watched the video. Pretty clear cut differences in multiple different experiments many of which have been repeated throughout the years giving the same results which were split along the lines of peoples gender.
A specific you said? No.
Except as I pointed out that's the present progressive point. As we were talking about Anita at the time I was pointing out that's the kind of thing she has spread. I mean that's part of her argument for non-gender specific sports.
yeh the original intent was to dismiss the arguments being made?
