Sir... if what I have done- referring to an ad hominem attack against you... then certainly that is what you are also guilty of.

Clearly, you are too busy gas lighting my responses rather than actually putting forth a substantial argument against shcopenhaur1/wallows question and response... I mean other than your own personal definition of what a philosophical debate should consist of.

You’ve just proved my point.

Tone does matter because if your looking to illicit a “fight” then your response is achieving your goal. Substantive responses will illicit a more in-depth argument. As it seems this is a petty response from you.

Wallow asked a question. Shcopenhaur1 responded with an answer. He admitted his answer is a fantasy I the question... what is paradise? What kind of response would you expect?

Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation? — S

I’ve been following this thread for some time now and I am curious as to your response is philosophical period.... it seems as though it is meant to illicit an emotional repose rather than a substantive response.

The original poster asked a question to which it was responded to clearly.