There can be no discussion when people attack a straw man instead of read the article. Nobody said anyone is inferior, at all.
That is obviously not at all clear, given the multi-national debate around this issue.
How does one knows that the premise is bad when you're not even allowed to disciss it? Furthermore, how come the discussion itself is viewed as harmful? If you claim that the premise is wrong shouldn't it be very easy to prove so? What if the other person is open minded and actually willing to consider your arguments, as long as you're willing to do the same?