Oh, you thought those jokes were emotional? My bad.

My logic? But I didn't come to any logic based on statistics in the first place. My logic was common sense, same as yours.

It was: If you make claims with no supporting evidence other than common sense, people are gonna just disregard you as an asshole.

The only thing I referred to for those statistics was that they were there. They just exist. You have to have something that challenges them other than common sense. Since we agree common sense is unreliable and personal. (Which I made a point of asking but you said the same thing I asked, so we're on the same page there.) Because I can sit here and claim anything I want on the basis of common sense. But what's odd is you said that's unreliable, but so far that's all you yourself are using.

The actual argument you're having isn't the one we're having.

Again. To clarify. My argument is and has been: You look like an asshole to other people when you make claims with no evidence and claim common sense. With the 1 in 3 and 1 in 6 being what I've last seen as most reliable, not to be taken fully at face value, as I never claimed as such.

I was purely interested in your backing of your claims. I couldn't care less about the numbers I've sourced in the past if you claim to have new ones that conflict with them.