I asked you a serious question about causality, and you reply with this?
How would you grade the substantive quality and logical quality of this reply according to the analytical framework you laid out for all of us in Post #37 of the "Cordial Participation in Terms of Service 2" thread:
1. Identification of the logical fallacies of the statement(s) or argument If you do not or cannot explain the flaws in the logic of a claim or argument, then do not state that 'their logic is dumb'. Logic is not a matter of one's individual preferences but a fairly codified set of guidelines. For example: a straw man argument, or presuming the truth of a conclusion in one's premises (aka ' begging the question'). Logic is not about facts but about how we arrive at conclusions - the 'rules' of argument if you will.
2. Carefully address statements you believe are wrong or false or misleading. IOW, fisk them. Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument
The above is so much more entertaining and educational than exposing one's inability to communicate with cheap insults.