>>4045>That's not at all a statement on the freedoms of women in the country.
Are you one of those "equal outcomes" people? Like I said, they're afforded the same opportunities. Considering where they're located I think it's fairly compelling the place is so much more stable, wealthy and -relatively speaking- modern when compared to so much of the rest of Africa, and seemingly the main difference seems to be legalized polygamy. It's almost like allowing the "top" most successful men with the biggest sense of commitment and responsibility to publicly spread their genes to multiple women results in more successful, productive children or something. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison to any of the surrounding countries, Liberia for example. Maybe I'll do that.
>one had absolutely no sources for the claims it was making that didn't link back to the site itself
You'd have to go through the chain of links, but you never said anything about the WashingtonPost or HuffingtonPost articles, I guess because you accept those as valid sources you just pretend they don't exist…?
>the other was irrelevant to your claim.
This isn't refutation, it's dismissal. "Hillary Clinton is president of the United States." "…But Donald Trump won the election." "DONALD TRUMP IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CONVERSATION. I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON."
>pointed out that they're dogshit sources that shouldn't be taken seriously
Which is a logical fallacy. To put it in context, it would be like me going "Hitler was against polygamy! Yeah, that's right! No polygamists in Nazi Germany! How do you like that, Nazi? You side with Hitler!" Just saying the source is "dog shit" isn't refuting it's arguments. Who makes an argument has no effect on the argument itself. Does Chris-Chan's full-throated endorsement of "women's rights" and "lgbt rights" mean the issues themselves are retarded since the person advocating them is? This is why it's a fallacy.
>It's the difference between saying "You're stupid, and you are also wrong" and going "You're wrong because you're stupid".
Hence "This source is dog shit" as the entirety of your argument.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.