You’re nitpicking a point that is not important to what I said and was clearly used to emphasis general consensus (non-fringe). Arguing the fringe is equally as valuable as the general academic consensus is like saying anti-vaxxers opinions are important because they exist.
Skimming articles for an hour doesn’t allow you enough time to reach any depth of understanding.
It appears that you’re arguing just for the sake of an argument. I did not anticipate nor want to argue about semantics and consensuses. I merely responded to OP’s comment.
what I said and was clearly used to emphasis general consensus
And with a trivial amount of reading, I found the general consensus was not as general as implied and actually somewhat confusing.
anticipate nor want to argue about semantics and consensuses // nitpicking a point
Words have meaning and I took issue with your phrasing. So yes. You are absolutely correct.
anti-vaxxers opinions are important because they exist.
Yes and no, and not for the reasons you would think. Every fallacy or myth might have a grain of original truth, or at minimum, it might help source the misinformation. In the interest of not arguing, I won’t comment further on that non sequitur.
Feel free to respond with anything and I won’t reply so you can get the last word in, if you choose. (Seriously, I am not trying to be cocky.)
You’re nitpicking a point that is not important to what I said and was clearly used to emphasis general consensus (non-fringe). Arguing the fringe is equally as valuable as the general academic consensus is like saying anti-vaxxers opinions are important because they exist.
Skimming articles for an hour doesn’t allow you enough time to reach any depth of understanding.
It appears that you’re arguing just for the sake of an argument. I did not anticipate nor want to argue about semantics and consensuses. I merely responded to OP’s comment.
I won’t engage further.
And with a trivial amount of reading, I found the general consensus was not as general as implied and actually somewhat confusing.
Words have meaning and I took issue with your phrasing. So yes. You are absolutely correct.
Yes and no, and not for the reasons you would think. Every fallacy or myth might have a grain of original truth, or at minimum, it might help source the misinformation. In the interest of not arguing, I won’t comment further on that non sequitur.
Feel free to respond with anything and I won’t reply so you can get the last word in, if you choose. (Seriously, I am not trying to be cocky.)