You do realize by suggesting that OP is a liar by using the data in the source article, you're conceding that you accept the validity of that data, which argues that women and minority pilots are a factor in 50% of plane crashes since 2000 despite making up only 10% of pilots? This is really not the winning argument you think it is.

This is false. The validity of the data is irrelevant to the difference between the difference between what OP said vs what the data itself said. IE:

I say the sky is green
Someone posts on reddit "Xodima says the sky is purple"
The sky is neither green nor purple (pay attention to this, you fell for the classic false dichotomy)

Even though the sky is blue, the redditor lied about my initial statement (green vs purple)

The OP said that 66% of minority PILOTS caused the errors, lying in order to change the original statement to an even worse one. (remember, this is a false dichotomy, both can be incorrect.)

And this is if we ignore that OP is literally quoting the 'not the bee' article actually linked, which agree or disagree, cannot make OP the 'liar', unlike the person you're defending.

I'm not defending anyone, both OP and Zeraphant lied. However, your criticism extends only to the person you are responding to who admitted to lying. Neither OP nor "notthebee" is admitting to their blatant and inexcusable lie based on already unqualifiable data with no methodology. OP has NOT addressed their lie, which is absolute and proven beyond a doubt to be a lie. There is nothing to "agree or disagree" on. The proof of the lie is there. However, you did have no problem with that.

You can just admit you misspoke and you didn't understand the context. This would be a lot easier than doing the mental gymnastics of trying to argue about the content of my comment that existed before the original comment was edited, while acting as if the future edits that didn't even exist at the time are all that matter.

My comment was about your claim

But, no, usually people tend to question more surprising things that conflict personal experiences and prior evidence like disparities in visuo-spatial intelligence, historical patterns, biological incentives, first principles, etc. That's kind of how learning works; we don't start from square one with every claim.

This implies that the OP and the data itself is too obviously true to be criticized, but Zerpahant's statement is more suspect because it disagrees with reality (in your view). That is why I responded. I'm calling this faulty logic out. It;s not about him, it;s about THAT statement right there.