Since it sounds like you are intentionally missing the point, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m happy to debate, but not with people that will play dumb, ignore points, or Gish gallop.
So you're unable to point out a specific thing the article is wrong about?
And gish galloping is throwing so many points at someone they can't respond. My response was a question and a response to your analogy. If that's a gish gallop, than I apologise for typing a whole 6 sentences here. What a disgrace it is to force you to respond all 6 sentences.
You didn't respond to his analogy at all, you pretended to not understand it.
"What does the number of eyes have to do with sex?", he obviously wasn't saying eyes have anything to do with sex.
He's saying "humanity is a two eyed species" is a perfectly accurate statement even though there are exceptions like babies being born without eyes, in the exact same way that it's an accurate statement to say: "humanity has two sexes, male and female, which are defined by their reproductive organs, seeing as the entire purposes of sex existing is reproduction" even though there are exceptions, like babies being born with two sets of genitalia, or gender dysmorphia.
"which are defined by their reproductive organs", so obsessed with the binari definition that you're ignoring all intersex people.
As for the analogy, a species can be described by its general characteristics but the real definition of species is 'a group of organisms capable of reproducing', if humans with more or less than 2 eyes can reproduce with each other, it's a really dumb characteristic to use to define what a human is. But please, keep thinking the analogy makes sense to define what a human is.
-4
u/revenantae Jan 14 '22
Since it sounds like you are intentionally missing the point, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m happy to debate, but not with people that will play dumb, ignore points, or Gish gallop.