>>12069932All you did was brandishing Kant's name.
I too can say Kant agree with my views, but I don't do that because that would be disingenuous.
When you make an argument and want to use Kant's logic and arguments, you cite him.
You don't even have to say that Kant came up with those ideas, because you open yourself to criticism such as appeal to authority. A man's name and his ideas are dissociable.
I drew the parallel with religious people because they have the same problem as you: they brandish a name instead of a proper and logical argument.
The biggest problem arguing with you is that you lack the proper tools to be argued against:
it's not the first time you do this but posting
>Literally no arguments.is not a proper counter argument.
What you do when you seek the truth in a civil discussion is you take every bit of what your opponent said and give counter example, facts and logical reasoning that contradict them.
The text I posted has non zero length, so it isn't empty of arguments. Whether those arguments are bad or good is yours to point out.
