@StevenV The arguments I made were operational (scientific) of which empiricism

@StevenV The arguments I made were operational (scientific) of which empiricism is but one dimensions. The responses were without exceptoin evidence of the female means of non-argument, defending the abrahamic method of deceit, combined with a failure to grasp basic concepts necessary to hold the claims your clowns asserted. In return I maintained the same strategy I have a long reputation for: reflect the insult and restate the central argument – or at least some component of it. Just as I have done in this paragraph. I even sent a set of links describing what I was doing and why. Yet all that occurred was evidence I was correction: common feminine justification of pretense of knowlege, use of GSSRM, pilpul, critique, as defense of the social construction of false promise (fraud) of freedom from formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws.

Really simple: no one has even understood basic criticisms of the variables that affect rates of evolution, nor a basic understanding of the limits of such mathematics, when results approach infinity. It’s like talking to kindergardeners about calculus. Adn I’ve baited every dimension that would allow anyone in the audience to demonstrate that knowledge, and thus demonstrate the capacity to hold with conviction the claims made.

It’s ok to have faith in a magic man if it makes you happy. But fait is not testifiable. That is why it requires faith. Therefore you may claim it is good, but may not claim it is true. Faith requires bearing insult for doing so. And when a people, and their faith are failing – largely becuase of their faith – then they have every incentive in the world for not bearing insult for faith.

The brain requires mindfulness to limit its costs. Some of us are more empathic and neurotic or of lower ability and value to others. As such they are weaker than others. The need for faith is a weakness.

The people who do not have and are not weak enough to require faith, demonstrate loyalty to the faithful when they are kith and kin just as men demonstrate loyalty to the empathic and neurotic fragility of women.

But to maintain that loyalty the women may never claim she is rational and possesed of agency, and the faithful may never claim they are testifying and that their words are true.

This breaks our coopeation by loyaty and makes the weak the enemy of the strong.

And the weak always double down on their weakness rather than adapt and in doing so mature into responsible agentful adulthood.

Thus endeth the lesson.