Far from it. It’s very easy to reproach someone for even one of the following: calling people names, ranting for hundreds of words about a single typo, outright lying, and refusing to back up their assertions. The combination of them all is unbelievably easy to reproach.

No, they aren’t. Not correctly anyway.

You answered it and were unable to back-up your assertion, just like you’re now unable to back-up your lies. Could you reference these “denials about being argumentative”? Of course not, because their source is either your confusion or your lies. Or maybe some strange combo. Just like you can’t back-up your claim that…

That somebody is you. Criticisms of a person’s tone of voice focus on just that–their tone of voice–they don’t involve creepy name-calling. I see you’re dodging your own lies again and don’t want to address your false quote yet again? “ ‘Selfie’ “?

I’m not at all concerned about what you think I should or shouldn’t do, given that you’re a terribly weird stranger on the internet who likes to call other people names. “Selfie”, by the way, is not a quote from me. You’re, yet again, mistaken. Try a “ctrl+F” is you need to verify that. It’s very peculiar that someone…

So unusual that, even as you call me more (and ever creepier!) names, you think that expecting evidence for an assertion is “nasty”.

What a strange and disgusting thing to say. And it still doesn’t make being incapable of distinguishing between “most” and “more likely” any kind of skill.

You didn’t supply any correction—a question isn’t to be corrected and you didn’t even answer the question, as you know unless you’re still struggling with the difference between “most” and “more likely”. I understand that it would make you feel better if I sunk to your depths but, no, you’re the only one in this…

Exhorting others to practice their skills of interpreting doesn’t excuse you from the responsibility to back up your own, voluntarily-made assertions. Neither does it excuse you from answering to your own weird, aggressive, lying, name-calling behaviour. I wonder what your investment is in the phrase “carry on” and…

So you’re not able to support your assertion that I “mischaracterized” you, just like how you weren’t able to support your assertion that post-partum divorce isn’t kind of common? Interesting. I also wonder how your supposed alignment with politeness squares with your namecalling.

What do you find to be a mischaracterization? Do you not accept that “most” and “more likely” are different? Do you believe that you didn’t call me names? Do you believe you didn’t lie about me saying that I hadn’t been argumentative? Or that those repeated behaviors weren’t aggressive? Or that they weren’t unusual?…

Simply linking to the US census and providing a nonsensical justification with a clear misunderstanding of the distinction between “most” and “more likely” wasn’t adequate to support your assertion. That’s not up for debate. And interest in your unusual aggression isn’t “spin”. Far from it.

Certainly, you’re only responsible for providing the support (including any inferences) for the statement you chose to make, and for addressing your lies, name-calling, and incorrect assertions. You have not fulfilled any of those responsibilities.

Of course you aren’t responsible for drawing inferences about whether or not a particular statement is true. Unless of course you make that statement in which case you absolutely are. You knew that already though, because you tried to draw such an inference (“To address your question, the average first marriage that…

If you could have backed up your answer to my question with any inference from that census document you provided, you would have done it long ago. Your aggressive reaction to your inability is what’s so strange. Speaking of mistakes, any follow up on your quickly dropped statement that I denied being argumentative? No?

Insisting a correction exists although you somehow can’t describe it is not the same as making a correction. Neither are the same as answering a question. It seems like you’ve been shamed out of literal name-calling by my describing your behavior with that term, yet you’ve really doubled down on the personal insults.…

No, it was a question about my understanding. That wasn’t a reason for you to refuse to support your own assertions, call me names, aggress me at unhinged length about a typo, and lie about me. It’s terribly odd that you believe it was.

No, my understanding is still that there’s a heightened risk of divorce in the year following the birth of a couple’s first child and your failure to provide evidence for your assertion to the contrary, instead frantically resorting to name-calling and open lies, has only made that seem more likely.

She certainly does get to have an opinion, and when that opinion is incognizant of the privileges that are afforded to those assigned male at birth—like the opinion that the amputation of a girl’s labia is close to foreskin circumsion—she gets to be told that’s not accurate.

Female genital circumcision is about “birth gender” (the preferred term is “assigned sex at birth” by the way, since you’re so keen to chuck around epithets like “super TERFy”) and the commenter who I responded to was the one who chose to invoke their own “birth gender” (i.e. assigned sex at birth) and make that…