>>11978617>I just took your idiom and prepostourously extended it to reveal the fruitlessness of this line of questioningDoesn't work like that my boy, you clearly changed my meaning and thus strawmanned me. And unironically cited Freud, lel.
>Truth rests closer to we don't know as attractivness is subjective, thus correlated with all state, thus unseparable into any 'vacuum' state. Probably bait but if not, supreme woman cope lmao. Beauty is objective, QED and rekt.
> place an inseparable item in a vat fallacyYep, literal strawman. What I clearly meant was dont claim 23 yos are more attractive because its taboo for an older guy to date an 18 yo
> don't understand the inherent nature of relativism and self reflexivityDelusional humanities babble
>So again, a true vacuum the male would have no conception of self. There's no photons in there, wouldn't even be able to seeAutistic people dont understand idioms I guess
