It said that you always agree with him, therefore implying that he is smarter than you, since one would only always agree with someone smarter than him...Yes I know that didn't make sense but think about it. I'm bad at explaining thing...>.<
And then there's this jumbled mass that I didn't even go into:
"I insult you, I make fun of your opinions, not because your stance isn't valid, but because you're so bad at logical debate that I want to make things more interesting (in other words, I'm trolling because you're boring). On the other hand, I call you on all of your insults, even implied, because I'm also trying to teach you how less clever you are than you think just because you didn't make a direct flame. I pick over statements made off-hand because you must learn that anything you say can and will be used against you if your opponent is sufficiently experienced/skilled."
Look at the bolded parts:
1. Superior to others who are "bad at logical debate." 2. He says he makes fun of them because they're bad, therefore he must hold himself as better than them at logical debate to give himself the right to insult them for it. 3. Only someone smarter/more knowledgeble than someone can have to the right to teach them. 4. Your opponent implies the speaker here. Sufficiently skilled/experienced means that he is more intelligent than the opponent, thus smarter.
Now I don't know the whole story here. Hell, he might even be quoting something, but taken at face value, he is implying he is intellectually superior to someone.
~~~
"Though always keen and eager the sheepdog never really mastered the herding of carnivorous sheep." 
|