>I am not addressing any of these points, because they do not address the point I have made, Fine, i'll afford you the same favor and ignore everything you sai

>I am not addressing any of these points, because they do not address the point I have made, Fine, i'll afford you the same favor and ignore everything you said, too. One sided judgements isn't discourse. Just to let you know, though, I was quite obviously replying to the first sentence you wrote in parent. >Look, I have no horse in this race, but this is clearly a personal attack in the reply above. Regardless.. Let me ask you a simple question. If you were driving with someone, and they slowly drove through a red-light and said "You only have to slow down on the reds." would you question that persons' understanding of traffic laws? I don't care who finds value in what philosopher, but when the only thing you can tell me about Nietzsche is that the word has an S in it[0], then I question your objective knowledge on that topic. If someone dismisses a philosophical point of view without the objective knowledge of what that philosophy entails, then I do not believe, personally, that their opinion is worth value with regards to philosophy. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa0bCzwSNA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa0bCzwSNA0 p.s. since you edited in a bunch of stuff about personal attacks after your initial post, let me mention : that word cloud you posted is devoid of who it was towards. Go re-read; the attacks are on 1) the idea 2) the motivation towards the idea -- not the person. That's exactly the difference between a personal attack and someone who is trying to disagree with that persons' idea.