>I can't reject what doesn't exist. You people ain't trying to refute my arguments, you're trying to refure me.
For the most part, it would be a waste of time to "refute" what you are referring to as your "arguments". What you are delivering (in broken English which is not 100% decipherable, no matter what you seem to think about your English being good enough for the task at hand) is a series of assumptions, half-truths, personal idiosyncrasies, and autistic tantrums, all wrapped up in Philosophy 101-level bluster about ontology, metaphysics, and a few other buzzwords you've picked up from the glossary of your Phil. 101 textbook. Then, when someone takes issue with one of your so-called arguments, or simply ignores the more incoherent ones, you turn to the chapter of your textbook on argumentative fallacies and start blubbering about those. You misunderstand and misapply them about half of the time, btw.
I'm sure your fellow students in the freshman dorm at Kreplakistan University are very impressed with your intellectual prowess. The fact that we are not does not mean that you are a tortured genius, surrounded by benighted Philistines who would hang on your every brilliant word if only we could *see* and *understand* the unsurpassed beauty of your utterances. You are not nearly as smart, as well-read, or as well-spoken as you seem to think you are.
I hope you do not think that I'm merely being an asshole. I am being an asshole, but not *merely*. I'm also trying to help you. You seem very puzzled as to why people are reacting with such hostility to you, and I hope this will help explain some of it.
You are much harder to understand than you suppose, and it is not because of the sophistication of your thought. It is the language barrier. It's not your fault that you're not a native English speaker, but your blamelessness in that regard doesn't make you any easier to understand.
You are arrogant, to the point of obnoxiousness. You seem to view yourself as some kind of savior (or at least promoter) of imageboard culture, and you lecture us about it, while it's clear that your own grasp on the history of imageboards and what's acceptable on them is tenuous at best. And, as I suggested above, nobody seems to be particularly impressed by your rather modest understanding of philosophy and rhetoric.
A thicker skin and a large dose of humility would go a long way toward improving your experience here, in a lot of ways. Nobody wants low-quality threads on /tech/, but if you're trying to persuade people that *your personal interpretation of what constitutes a good thread* is what should set the standard, you're not doing yourself any favors by the way you're engaging with people in this thread or on /tech/.