The post was entirely about flaws in its parent post's reasoning. The flaws were correctly identified. What does this have to do with your assumptions about the author's perspective?
Because it is defending the status quo. Everything that was said is true, but nothing was said that didn't defend the old perspective. It happens a lot - you defend an opinion you had, and when you come up with some good evidence in your favor, you pretty much stop there. But if you had tried to see it from the other side, you may not have been so defensive.
Cultural/memetic inertia is really hard to overcome, mostly because of this I think.
Cultural/memetic inertia is really hard to overcome, mostly because of this I think.