And being as the only way to tell who is a "serious" philosopher is using some kind of objective metric I guess you agree that the "scientific method" was achieved in spite of and not because of philosophy.

What you are doing is no different than Christians claiming that the scientific method was born from Christian research and therefore science is an extension of Christianity. Nothing but apologetics based on reduction that everyone in science has heard a million times before.

Biology is just applied Chemistry. Chemistry is just applied Physics. Physics is just applied Math. They are all just applied philosophy. The difference being philosophy has no real means of maintaining coherence. No way to tell if something is insightful or complete nonsense. Bad science will become known given a bit of time. Bad philosophy just gets apologists.

That you can define something as philosophy does not mean that everything defined as philosophy is equally useful. You are working backward to prove a conclusion. A fossil is just a rock but that doesn't mean all rocks are equally interesting or useful.

I doubt anyone would be so "it's just a statement of fact" about that statement.

Incorrect. A monopoly can exist through lack of competition or lack of adequate competition. The free market still exists for others to compete however.

Once an "entity" has that kind of monopoly power they will usually use their market force to perpetuate that power. The hypothetical in all of this is whether or not they could maintain that power in a free market if they really didn't deserve it.

Well mines are pretty frowned upon. Mexicans and Canadians are both capable of swimming so moats wouldn't actually keep anyone out.

So against treaties and completely ineffectual.. You're right- that does sound like it is within the mandates of the US government.

They seem to use muscles and arrows quite successfully though.

Idealized male stereotypes will appeal to both men and women. Idealized female stereotypes will appeal to both men and women. Seriously look at things marketed to women; the women there are every bit as sexualized and so are the men. The difference is men don't seem to feel entitled to dictate women's fantasies on any broad scale.

And that's not an ad-hominem, genetic fallacy or poisoning the well.

Yep, that's a good point.

If roles were reversed it would have been over in a minute. But not because of the gender reversal. It would have been over immediately because there would have been no concentrated effort to censor the topic. That is the only reason this whole thing blew up like it did. There is no better way to get people to talk about something then to tell them they aren't allowed.

No one went after other women because of the scandal. There were, however, some other women that injected themselves into the discussion.

No it is not a known lie. Repeating that enough doesn't make it true. The two of them had a very friendly relationship. She got positive media coverage for a game that would have been completely ignored otherwise (or "press" as you call it). Around the very same time (within weeks) they were sleeping together. Most people would criticize that.

Every time you're not benevolently sexist enough*

"SJW"s get their bad rep not for being egalitarian but for demanding benevolent sexism and decrying anything less than that as hatred of women.