I was referring to their shared inability to participate in any real discussion and instead just projecting their inner dialogue. As much as I despise some of your ideas you can at least carry a conversation....

Are you talking about me? <:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

Not desiring to discuss complicated philosophy with ***retarded people*** isn't the same as being incapable of discussion. In fact, I've been conversating here quite readily for some time now, some of the conversations even being rather constructive. Almost as though the actual problems are the retarded sperg, a lack wit boomer(you) and this virtue signaling loser @ETBrooD who literally never even made an argument and just did an off-topic rant about how a philosopher wasn't right about everything. (literally common sense and applies to every philosopher that has ever lived)

Virtue signalling doesn't mean what you think it means

Unlike nietzsche, Kant wasn't right about ANYTHING. He was a charlatan completely.

That's your opinion

@ETBrooD Yeah it does. Literally the only reason you're participating in this conversation is in defense of Hex. That's it. Just you spewing your virtue and pretending to be a good person for standing up for somebody who's incapable of having an actual debate.

> That's your opinion

Durrrrrr, thank you captain obvious!

You stated a huge claim as fact

So I felt the need to point it out that this is your opinion

When you make such a big claim, you should be aware how radical it is, and either present proper argumentation to back it up, or just say it's your opinion
Not refer to Nietzsche's quote, and add "he's 180 IQ"

IIRC BKP also defended his sperging by calling everyone idiots. Just saying.....

I notice that trend, too

Not that you can't call people spergs, but without proper argumentation behind it idk

It's "you're too dumb to know how dumb you are" level of argumentation

I made proper argumentation; Hex did not. Hex lost an argument very badly yesterday and then crawled from his hole today to ad hom me out of spite. You @ETBrooD don't even understand the full context of this debate, however that's irrelevant to how virtuous sticking your nose into other people's affairs makes you feel. So why would you need to?

Yeah I argue my stuff all the time by quoting walls of text from old philosophers

Makes me bigbrained and gets me all the girls

@ETBrooD We weren't even having an argument, the Nietzsche quote was simply something supporting my opinion. We had a very long and arduous conversation yesterday, this being the only reason Hex even deemed to make an attempted personal attack against me today.

You know what's ***especially hilarious*** about this situation? Hex's opening statement about the Nietzsche topic was an *attempted ad hom.* Here you are accusing me of, supposedly, "arguing" dishonestly when the ***opening statement of the "argument"*** was a fallacy based in spite. He was literally just attacking me to attack me and ignoring the topic of Kant altogether.

The fact that this has *apparently* completely flown over your head is, frankly, hilarious.

@ETBrooD "MUH VIRTUEEE. MUHHH NAME'S ETBROOD AND I STAND UP FOR THE RETARDED FOR NO APPARENT REASON. STARTING A CONVERSATION WITH ATTEMPTED AD HOM IS TOTES COOL AND A PROPER WAY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. MUHHHHH VIRTUEEEEEEE"

Kill yourself.

One doesn’t need to say “kill yourself” if he is winning the argument- game of thrones

I didn't "need" to say it and I've, very obviously, already won this "argument"

Which was never even really a argument? What's the argument? Brood's virtue against my coarse behavior? Is that the argument? <:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

WHAT ARE WE EVEN ARGUING ABOUT, THIS ENTIRE THING IS A FUCKING AD HOM.

"Durrrr, I don't like how you dismissed him, you're a bad person, here's my opinion about nietzsche for some reason durrr you're a bad person because I don't like how you're acting, I'm not going to make an argument or say anything worthwhile but you're a bad person and... Uhh...."

All because some idiot didn't read my post and tried to attack me out of spite due to a previous argument.

You guys are some whiney faggots.

From what I can see you insulted Hex first
https://gyazo.com/4c62a7d40ce091f56fce1b695cb248d1

So what

I ended the conversation, ohhh nooo

Yeah so what, right? So what. Hmm maybe so you have no leg to stand on when saying he came back to insult you

He also came to the same conclusion yesterday that I came to today
https://gyazo.com/f4cbefcc003db19c625eea8e79559408

Both independently from one another, coincidence?

He didn't "insult" me and couldn't possibly. He made an ad hom, I didn't make an ad hom, I insulted him and ended a conversation. These aren't the same thing at all.

Phadreus is screeching again? What a shock.

You should learn the difference between being right and arguing well

Do I need to talk in small words to help you understand how fallacies work? I can do that if you're having a hard time. @ETBrooD

How tf is that an argument for anything

<:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Make your argument, don't talk big words about fallacies. I know fallacies, too. You're not the exceptional 1 million IQ person here

If you "know fallacies" then why would you bring up *insults* when I pointed out that Hex started a conversation with a **ad hom?**

"big words about fallacies" dude, what? I don't even consider knowledge of fallacies to be a big deal, they're literally just basic rules for debate to avoid blatantly illogical strategies. If that's too "big brained" for you then maybe you should stop trying to have arguments with people until you hit the boks a little.

@ETBrooD

You brought up insults, not me

I literally couldn't care less about being insulted in an argument and never said anything about insults. At all. I mentioned the ***fallacy*** that hex opened his argument with.

@ETBrooD No I didn't