And every time you're refuted as presenting an overly simplistic view, mistaking correlation for causation, and a having a host of other categorical and logical

And every time you're refuted as presenting an overly simplistic view, mistaking correlation for causation, and a having a host of other categorical and logical errors. What you do when you link like that is make a "shotgun bullet-point argument:" you're presenting a set of loose, possibly related facts as though they're all mutually reinforcing studies leading to the same conclusions. There's no "there" there.