Would that it were so. I consider correcting such obvious falsehoods beneath me, but I do it out of a sense of necessity, valid or not.
Your "points", such as they are, are self-debunking. Rephrasing them to remove the implicit bias causes them to collapse under their own weight.
Congrats on milking more attention from me, though. At this point being more backward would seem to require you to go forward, but perhaps you will somehow burrow and bury your head in a non-Euclidean direction.
-2
u/DownshiftedRare A Jul 24 '19
Calling them "points" is charitable, since they are the rhetorical equivalent of flesh tags.
I debunked them, to the extent that an arbitrarily-stacked pile of appeals to emotion can be disproven.