What did I miss?
I argued that:
- The author of TFA is not a subject matter expert.
- He relies on the opinions of people known to hold fringe, debunked opinions on the subject matter, like Stephen Meyer.
- Said people belong to the Discovery Institute, known to promote religion as science.
- It is a pointless exercise for the scientific community to engage with crackpots and people dishonest about their actual goals (e.g. promoting religious views, fighting atheism, whatever it is they believe they are doing).
- A persecution complex ("they want to suppress dissenting views") is usually a sign of crackpottery.
I believe this is substantive, don't you?
> way to do a lot of arguing without actually arguing about anything substantive, A+
If you meant to say "I disagree with you" just say so.
I argued that:
- The author of TFA is not a subject matter expert.
- He relies on the opinions of people known to hold fringe, debunked opinions on the subject matter, like Stephen Meyer.
- Said people belong to the Discovery Institute, known to promote religion as science.
- It is a pointless exercise for the scientific community to engage with crackpots and people dishonest about their actual goals (e.g. promoting religious views, fighting atheism, whatever it is they believe they are doing).
- A persecution complex ("they want to suppress dissenting views") is usually a sign of crackpottery.
I believe this is substantive, don't you?
> way to do a lot of arguing without actually arguing about anything substantive, A+
If you meant to say "I disagree with you" just say so.