By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 20 December 2012
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
No they don't. Please tell me what is genuis about a 20 year old who has the mental age of a 2 year old? 

No statistics have been dismissed whereas your claim that wikipedia cannot be used has been shown to be false as it has been used. What we can therefore assertain is that in an instance it has been used, whereas you were providing the unsubstantiated claim that it can't be used. 

As you never provided any proof whatsoever, it is now up to you to prove your original claim as the opposite has been provided for us. 

Those souces come straight from wiki, therefore why couldn't you get them from the wiki page yourself?
 You are just being pedantic.  Do you have any sort of mental handicap as your pedantic argument defies all sense?

It's ironic that you resort to patronising comments in a thread about fallacies...

It's pretty repulsive that you are attacking those with autism. Grow up.

Again, citing one example isn't enough. That's still anecdotal fallacy. You are the one that wants to use wikipedia, not me, thus you have to back up your claim that it is credible (which it isn't).

Again wikipedia is modifiable by anyone. Any wikipedia entry you cite, I can go modify. That's why you need to cite an actual source, not the source of the source. Quite ridiculous again that you can't comprehend this. It's rudimentary. Again, this could all be because you are in middle school. Maybe you haven't yet developed enough mentally in order to comprehend this. I just expected better is all because of the simplicity of it.

Stating that autism is a servere handicap is attacking those with autism how? Claiming that being autistic has a stong correlation to genius just shows how ignorant you are on the condition.

Actually the issue is that you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim whatsoever. His evidence hasn't been used to refute your evidence, it's been used to refute your baseless statement. 

Why are you unable to click on the references which link to peer-reviewed papers and check them out yourself? You can't alter those papers so what is the issue? 
Again with the insults...You mention simplicity yet you can't follow a hyperlink to a peer-reviewed paper...If I was talking about a wikipage that wasn't referenced, then yes there is an issue. But what is the issue with a CORRECTLY referenced article?