Only one who rejects the school of Objectivism would deny the direct link between it and Objectivity in which my comment was based. Calling this willful mendacity contradicts your assertion that I have no clue what I am talking about in turn making your "red pill" forum assertion even more laughable. Thanks for…

The topic of discussion was that your assertion was false which I was easily able to demonstrate. I fully support his quest of making the lives of Journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, and BLM activists and other professional victims a living hell because they deserve it. They arrogantly make the false…

Spot on. Given your sarcasm, you obviously know nothing of what actually took place.

You provide no evidence to support your claim. Nor has any of the detractors been able to prove that claim. It is irrefutable in every way. It is essentially the scientific method applied to everything. Your claim is irrational.

Well, your final statement was just a plain rejection of objectivity. That's about as irrational as it gets.

You've done nothing but take a brutal beating in terms of debate. Good day sir, I wish I could say it was a challenge.

You should ask yourself why. If you are honest, you will have taken the "red pill". Enjoy the regressive hell hole of indoctrination called "higher education". You've been carefully groomed for ignorance. You should fit right in.

As I mentioned, the scientific method by its very definition is an adherence to objectivist epistemology. Otherwise, its predictions will invariably be false. You can wrongly reject so-called "Objectivists", but it seems you have a fundamentally flawed view of the scientific method. Studying science in school…

This would explain your inability to understand science.

The scientific method follows objective epistemology 100%. Consensus "science" or peer reviewed "science" does not in any way guaranty that the scientific method was used. If you cannot grasp basic epistemology, you leave yourself open to vast deception.

You don't get it, I know. It's called objectivist epistemology. They only real way to rationally observe the world we live in. Anything else is fodder for social justice warriors that don't care about facts.

Wrong again. The fact that homosexuals remain a minority is indicative of my claim about the filtering that occurs. No scientist can counter the argument I just presented without rejecting the premise. It is logically impossible. It would be like creating a square circle.

It meets the technical criteria for a disorder in the terms of biological evolution I just described. You can disagree with my assessment only if you disagree with the fact that evolution of human life is contingent upon its reproductive function and that anything that interferes with it evolutionarily, is a…

So you are saying that the human race can persist without the reproductive function? Please explain how. You cannot.

Wrong. The argument is founded upon the fact that human life is dependent on its reproductive function and that anything that interferes with it is contrary to its continued existence and is evolutionary "trash" that will filter out on its own. It is thus a given that the reproductive process is a fundamental…

Who is this "science" person you seem to worship like a god? Firstly, "science" does not equal "consensus" or what a preferred group of scientists tend to report. Just because they don't call it a disorder doesn't somehow make it such that males were evolved purposefully to NOT reproduce by holding a preference for…

You hold a minimum 50% responsibility for that and it seems more likely that you misunderstood what I was saying. But ultimately, this is all off-topic. Your criticism of Milo in every case has been invalid. You disagree with his views, but your attempts to smear him with these bogus "human rights" criticisms only…

"Yes because that's what I said." Worst argument I've ever witnessed. You actually made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Maybe you wish to inform me on how two dudes can procreate then? Seriously, has it really come to this?

The biological argument is irrefutable. Any scientist who says otherwise is not pulling his weight. I can entertain the metal argument but again, none of this supports your criticism of Milo.