> He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that women's role is primarily in reproduction will outbreed everybody. That's not even c

> He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that women's role is primarily in reproduction will outbreed everybody. That's not even close to what I read when I saw: > will rule the world That seems extremely normative to me. In fact, I honestly fail to see any facts presented in the one sentence I responded to. There are a lot of debatable nuanced points between the factual statement of having more kids and the conclusion of ruling the world. There are no connecting-the-dots arguments in the post I responded to. If Animats wanted to mean the fact you bring up, she/he would have just said the fact. But that is not what happened. Taking the simplest interpretation of Animats's one entirely-normative sentence, it is an extreme opinion that expresses a large contempt/disdain for organized religion. I really hope you examine your post, and evaluate how and why you took Animats' opinion and managed to somehow extract a fact from it. And that's whether I turned agnostic or not.