If that's the case, then it follows that: > You are personally attacking James Damore, and then just spinning words around to make a point you agree with. Spe

If that's the case, then it follows that: > You are personally attacking James Damore, and then just spinning words around to make a point you agree with. Specifically, this following statement is a gross misrepresentation of the argument he was making, which really was only clear with the bell curve diagrams that most news media companies purposefully omitted: > he believes that women are genetically inferior at the job he does. Furthermore, I disagree with the part about either argument being personal. We both attacked the argument, not the person. There was no ad hominem in either my original statement nor your retort.