Their point is that the FBI has not proven the DKRP hacked Sony, which is not the same as saying the DKRP did not hack Sony.

you cannot prove that the girl's preference for the gold bikini is solely based on social influence.

You have trouble with comparisons and analogies. We are not talking about a disagreement on a experiment setup or the equipment used in the experiment. Your "argument" is against the very hypothesis itself. To make your previous example more applicable to what is going on here, the counterclaimers would have to have…

I have never agreed with you because you do not the compare the same things. One example is a man on a deserted island and the other is a hypothetical girl who is totally removed from society liking the color pink.

You are asking me to prove a negative again. You say that society is not the sole influence, then what ABOUT THIS VIDEO LEADS YOU TO THAT CONCLUSION???

How can I admit that there were other contributing factors when you have NOT POINTED OUT WHAT IN THE VIDEO MAKES YOU BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE?

When we were talking about the little girl, I was saying people could not disprove her genetics weren't a factor. This was in order to show that they could not then claim that societal influence MUST be the only factor.

My God, you still have not made a claim yet. She might by innately attracted to gold? What about the video makes you say that? She could have an instinctual love of gold? Again, what about the video makes you say that?

That was sufficient proof tat nature does have an affect on preference. It is proof that nurture is not the only factor in preference.

You never made a point this whole thread. You were asking people to disprove that genetics had nothing to do with it. You never positively stated that it was a mixture of anything. You only goal remember was to poke holes in the notion that socialization had anything to do with what the girl said.

Banks was right about him. He cooning so hard right now he's giving Stephin Fechit a run for his money.

I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable with vagueness, but vagueness is required when we DO NOT KNOW a more concrete solution. And that has been "my point all along." That neither you, nor I can definitively state why the girl likes the gold bikini.

You've been asking people to prove a negative since this thing started, so I can see why you're upset at actually having to stake a claim to a hypothesis and back it up. I can see now, that you're trying to come off as this pragmatic middleman, but its bullshit, dude. People in science make explicit arguments and have…

You're changing the goal posts. Man, you argue dirty. An internal valuation for the deserted islander is "I won't get sunburned under this tree." When we were talking about the little girl, you were saying people could not disprove her genetics weren't a factor. She was "innately" attracted to gold; it was…

I DON'T. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY WHY SHE THINKS THE WAY SHE DOES. THAT'S THE POINT.

I don't claim she does. It is merely a possibility and I do have plenty of studies that back that up. It being a possibility means you cannot say her preference is a reflection of societal pressure.

This was posted upthread earlier. I looked at it.

The stranded islander was not drawn to that tree by his genes, either. It was a pragmatic decision. What percentage in making that decision was determined by this islander's genes? How did you measure this?

Are you suggesting that people removed from society CANNOT EVER develop a preference for pink?

No, I'm one of those types where "logic" and "critical thinking" aren't just code words for "agreeing with what the white man just said."