I like the way you ignore any explanations or attempts to clarify, appeal directly to personal authority, refuse to acknowledge when any point was made and move directly to personal attacks.

You tried the same thing with views on firearms and rights as I recall and I still did my best to treat you with respect.

As per my previous, I made an amendment to clearly differentiate that I do not refer to the mental illness — I absolutely acknowledge that there are several different meanings and moved to clear up any misconception about what I meant. Adding to that, I clearly explained my position just like last time, you instead move to attack and then tried to state that I align religion=creationism which simply isn’t true.

SIDENOTE: I actually think Ken Ham is GENUINELY delusional, from a mental health perspective.

You’re trying to use ‘science’ as a blunt force authority as if you have the only correct perspective when you know darned well that it's not. My view on creationism being delusional is not new — my article was actually about having the view deemed intolerant.

I don’t think that you argue in good faith. I don’t think you add to the conversation — I dislike when people move to personal insults and strawman what I say to better attack your take on the position you created for me. Given the way you tend to respond, I think it best if you blocked me to avoid my material.

Thanks for the exchange — best of luck and a Merry Christmas to you.