"Computers are different from all the rest of science. That's why there's so few women in the field."
How are computers different from the rest of science?
"They just are!"
That's not an argument.
"You're a dishonest jerk!"
I think I understand where you're coming from now.
I'm genuinely interested in integrating ideas. It may get rough. But that's the war of ideas.
I've laid out my logic. If you don't understand any of it, I can expand. If you're unwilling to understand it, that's on you.
You've addressed none of my points. And made no attempt to rephrase my actual position.
If you don't like me saying you are dishonest in your arguments don't be dishonest in your arguments—or explain how you weren't being dishonest.
> I think I understand where you're coming from now.
Do you? I want to critique your arguments, your epistemology, and the way you argue.
You've tried to make it look like I'm making untenable claims, can't justify what I've said, and then an insult for a cherry on top.
Critique what I've said, not some strawman dialogue.
"Computers are different from all the rest of science. That's why there's so few women in the field."
How are computers different from the rest of science?
"They just are!"
That's not an argument.
"You're a dishonest jerk!"
I think I understand where you're coming from now.