>>520333101
But you are mentioning it for no reason.
There is literally zero difference to your argument, whether its being made by a man or a woman.
I could have made the arguments you have despite being a man. The qualities, telos and content of the argument itself are what matters, whether it is quantifiable, falsifiable, logical, demonstrable. You are not adding value to the argument by trying to include your personal “perspective”. In fact it does the opposite, you are obscuring our ability to achieve objective quali- and quantification because if we reach a point of disagreement, one side can simply fall back onto the unfalsifiable argument of “well, from my point of view…/my feelings say otherwise…/ etc”.
I would even consider some of your arguments to be reasonable, well founded and worth discussing (especially
>>520332119 talking about post quality), but once you play the “as a woman…” card you’ve already ontologically poisoned the well, so to speak. Too many fucking anons do this as well btw (…as a christian/american/german/whatever the fuck). Its retarded and irrelevant.
Once you add the “as a…bla bla bla” you’ve demonstrated you are not seeking truth over/at cost to face, but rather seeking agreement over/at cost to truth.
This argument can be made as a man or woman, or by a tranny, nigger, literally doesnt matter. It doesnt matter who or what I am, or what my perspective is. My argument is either logically consistent, objectively measurable in and of itself and therefore falsifiable, or it is not.
To demonstrate good faith on my behalf, I recommend you learn first about binary/prepositional logic (and its flaws/limits/paradoxes) and then trinary logic, maybe then you’ll get why the argument is what matters, not the person behind it.
Until then, tits or gtfo.