[wtallis]

> Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept.

You think I'm denying your claim that "men need fathers". That's because you're spoiling for a fight instead of trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Before I can take you seriously, you need to start showing some awareness that there are potential alternative explanations for what you claim is too obvious to require evidence. The questions and criticisms your comments raise and the fallacies your comments perpetrate are obvious and plentiful enough that you should be able to anticipate at least some of them yourself, and preemptively respond to them as a way of strengthening your case and making your comments substantive. Instead, you're continuing to make low-effort comments and treating this forum like a playground for your trollish behavior.

[Supply5411]

So it seems you're not interested in evidence of the thing you claim to seek, because you're not willing to define what would convince you, so that I can use that to find materials that fit your criteria. Ok, have a nice day :)

[defrost]

It's not just wtallis, I also second the opinion that you're failing to provide any comments of substance here.

You could be making a case, instead you're just demanding others carry your water for you.

[Supply5411]

A case for why men need fathers? These Kafkaesque lines of questioning don't make it clear what people are actually upset about or want to learn more about.