Moved to the lounge to keep from derailing further.
Funny how you keep making comments about my opinion. I made no claim about the scientific validity of my opinion. Funny how you have shifted over the course of this exchange from near certainty, to broad estimate, to the science is not close to settled. The issue is you passing off opinion as scientific fact, isn't it?
It's annoying because it's exactly the same tactic employed by all the other trolls around here. Someone posts a bullshit claim as though it were a fact, fails to back it up, and then in the face of contradictory evidence, pretends they made a different claim, or as you're doing now saying, oh well it's your problem if you care that I made a bullshit comment I can't defend.
Now, thanks to your idiotic stubbornness, I need to rub your nose in it because you think your shit don't stink.
First you said this,
1. What about the way this is written suggests it is only your lay opinion as opposed to established science?
In my first reply to you I explicitly said you're welcome to your opinion and offered my own. You in turn doubled down, to wit,
1a. What about the way this is written suggests it is only your lay opinion as opposed to established science?
So, quite reasonably, I think, I said, "That may be what you have seen, but what I have seen contradicts it. How about seeing if you can produce some actual data to support that?"
You start off by claiming you don't understand the question and follow it with anecdotal evidence of no scientific validity. So, I tried to give you another chance to distinguish between your opinion and what the science says,
You reply with more anecdotes and invite me to establish your claim for you. Anyone can see your fuckery here,
But you were indeed trying very hard to be difficult, weren't you? Because I gave you another chance to admit you were putting forward opinion as established scientific fact and you dodged it again.
I said, "...let's see the empirical data to support that if you have any. If you don't, just say so. No shame in it. It's not a simple topic and my questions are not simple at all. You made a scientific claim and around here it's standard practice to back that with empirical evidence. One should no more take your word for this based on anecdotal evidence than to accept as fact non-binary gender based only on my cousin Nancy who was getting into fistfights with boys from the age of 6 (disclaimer, totally made up, doesn't exist)."
And your reply was,
See #1 and #1a, and then tell me again where in there you indicated you "don't have a hard line"? And I gave you yet another opportunity to walk back your arrogance,
Instead, you resort to misstatement of my point with,
"That is not the only scientific opinion one can find suggesting that. Cry more that others have different views, including people who study this for a living."
{Seriously, what the fuck kind of delusion is this?}
Who was talking about different views? Who is disputing what scientists say? I'm disputing what you claimed,
Again, "You made the declarative statement that genetics were FAR MORE significant than diet. You said that. There is no missing context nor misrepresentation of your intent to be found. You were given the opportunity to admit that might be an exaggeration in the absence of empirical data to support it and you chose instead to condescend and avoid the question repeatedly."
You have the same inability to admit an error as every other Dunning-Kruger case study on this site. May you join them in the bit bucket.
