See, that's actually an attempted bait and switch since the point here made is about traits making a good soldier/warrior, not survival in general which I hope nobody actually thinks are the same thing (just food for thought, wars, especially modern wars have young, healthy people fight, get injured and die at the behest of a small wealthy elite, not exactly survival maximising behaviour for a species). I admit accusing him of using ST evolution was wrong, I should have dismissed it entirely as irrelevant. My bad.Terralthra wrote:Err...no, he's using pretty clear fitness logic. If increased pain tolerance were fitness-maximizing, we wouldn't have the sensitivity to pain that we do. You may not like the implication, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it without rebutting it.
O you mean when he called me transphobic by using the old MRA ploy to conflate gender and sex? Did that sound good in his head?You know, it isn't often that someone on this forum not only admits to, but seems to pride themself on committing a style-over-substance fallacy. Did this sound good in your head: "I know, I'll show that mean Starglider. I'll tell him that I ignored his substantive points and the evidence he presented because he was mean!"?
Also, it's not Style Over Substance to comment that bringing your points up in the most assholish manner possible, by using sneering references to "political correctness" and "social justice points" in a discussion about feminism is not conducive to a fruitful debate. Or do you actually think so?
ETA:
Also, how did I ignore the "evidence" Starglider presented? The first argument he brought was blatantly overselling the conclusions of an article he picked up from the web. When I pointed out that had exaggerated its findings he called me stupid and to go find the evidence myself. Did that sound good in his head, does it sound good in yours? I guess you overlooked this all just so you could call me a pansy that shrinks before bad words. Bleh.