>>108839536First, “I don’t need to engage with the argument if I attack the foundation of the reasoning” is a false dichotomy. At this point in the discussion, the argument is about the foundations of reasoning. Epistemology, justification, standards of truth: those are the some subject matters. You can’t place “the argument” on one side and “the foundations” on the other as if they’re separate lanes. When someone challenges your epistemic framework, engaging with that challenge is engaging with the argument.
Second, you have not actually attacked the foundations of reasoning at all. Attacking foundations requires things like:
- identifying a hidden presupposition,
- showing circularity,
- demonstrating incoherence,
- or explaining why a standard of justification fails.
None of that happened.
Third, your own explanation collapses internally. You say: “I didn’t attack your use of AI as an argument, only to mock your low intelligence” That admission undercuts their claim entirely. Mockery is not epistemic critique. If the AI point is not part of the argument, then it contributes nothing to showing the reasoning false. And if it is part of the argument, then it’s a genetic fallacy. Either way, it fails.
Fourth, notice the pattern: you keep saying “I already responded”, “I attacked the foundation”, “I’ve seen enough”, but never show where or how. This is rhetoric designed to signal dominance, not to establish truth. In philosophy, if you can’t articulate the flaw, you haven’t found one.
Finally, the racial jab seals the diagnosis. When someone shifts from epistemology to ethnic contempt, it’s because the intellectual route is closed to them. If they actually had a foundational refutation, they wouldn’t need to lean on identity, mockery, or spiritual accusations. Those are coping mechanisms, not arguments.
