your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.

1. Show me the alleged debunking. Claiming it exists while seething at me is not convincing. If it's the same argument made by that other person, I already broke it down and showed how it doesn't hold water, so make sure not to repeat it.
2. Actually, now that I think about it, it's ironically you that can't read by your definition of literacy, because you failed to understand that it was a hypothetical analogy to begin with, that works just fine even if said study didn't even exist in the first place. The actual point all along is that it's wrong, morally and practically, to generalize that way about the entirety of any demographic.

But it seems all you've demonstrated proficiency in is slinging clumsy, unoriginal (more irony!) barbs.

And you’re also delusional. I’m not surprised.

You know what's extra ironic about your reply? It was literally my partner getting my attention for a moment that broke my train of thought and resulted in me not completing that sentence. Of course, now it's best not to fix it until after I share this exchange with her, it'll make her reading this part extra amusing. :)