Actually no, see I live in the states and it was like damn near 3 am when I responded so didn't really feel the need to be too elaborative. Furthermore, your foundations in understanding were so challenged given your lack of exposure to the US (presumably) that I didn't want to have a long drawn out discussion requisite to even attempt to debate the underlying issues. My starting point was that you were simply ignorant, but I can't justify that now without having a better understanding of your own cultural experiences. But alas, I truly do not care enough. The fact that you first did not understand my muslim analogy, and then once you (supposedly) understood it better and still got offended speaks volumes to me on your ability to understand logic. You were guilty of generalizing and I made an egregious analogy that showed you where that could lead. You didn't understand and so you simply reacted as you've been trained to react. You're professing this understanding of "complex longitudinal data sets" yet you are challenged when it comes to understanding causation and correlation. Perhaps you need to get out of the weeds more; I can't see it hurting. You argue against intergenerational wealth transfers, but then backpedal and say "well see I'm just saying all else being equal if one person starts with an extra dollar that person will be ahead by one dollar -- again all else being equal". WTF are you actually saying? The sky is blue? Are you saying they are bad? Or aren't you? Get out of the weeds if we're going to consider you for a promotion.