>So you claim that there are so many sexist skeptics that it is a given that all skeptics are sexist? No, but I do claim that the "all" quantifier is useless i

>So you claim that there are so many sexist skeptics that it is a given that all skeptics are sexist? No, but I do claim that the "all" quantifier is useless in human affairs. Why even try to rephrase my statement with "all"? To make it more like a strawman? What I claim is: "there are many sexist skeptics, period". I don't care if not "all" of them are. I know that I met a large percentage that were, and that it is enough for me to not like those kind of communities. Plus, it's not that I just dislike their sexism, I dislike their general attitude, which the original article describes quite accurately. That is, they made "thinking independently" into a religious-like dogma. >I am not even sure what skeptics communities there are, and certainly they don't all agree with each other. I mean the general "Carl Sagan, Dawkins, James Randi, etc are gods among men, let's hang around internet forums and sites and debunk junk science, lament for the lack of scientific knowledge, waste time arguing with conspiracy theorists, religious nuts, et al" kind of sceptic communities. Maybe with some Ayn Rand thrown in for good measure.