> "Your confusing statistics with Logic." The "appeal to statistics" is just re-proposed racist talking points. You would not accept it in a discussion involv

> "Your confusing statistics with Logic." The "appeal to statistics" is just re-proposed racist talking points. You would not accept it in a discussion involving race, and you should not accept it in a discussion involving sex or gender. > Notwithstanding the merits of either side, you are (1) structurally mis-understanding the nature of the argument. (2) baiting an HN commenter to personally disparage [persons x, y, and z]; and (3) making a veiled threat. 1) See above. 2) I am not baiting anybody into disparaging these women, and do not see how my comments could honestly be misconstrued as such. I don't want @zorpner to insult these women, I want zorpner to realize that unless they have specific information about these specific women, then there is no justification for assuming such disparaging things about these women. 3) I have made absolutely no threats, veiled or otherwise. Where the hell are you getting this from? > "The [persons X,Y,Z] are not representative employees at firm Q [0,1]..." "[0] HR/Ops specialist, a Lawyer, and an Accountant..." This has been addressed in this discussion by one of the women in question, I am genuinely stunned that you are repeating it.