Let's start back, just after the beginning.
I say your post is dumb. This is not an argument of course; your accusation of ad hominem (or had it been any other fallacy) is completely unfounded - miseducation in "critical thinking".
You then go on to say my comment "isn't intellectually stimulating or thought provoking". This also isn't an ad hominem, since it isn't an argument - but it's exactly the same thing that you complained at me for.
You ask me to give you my reasoning or to address each point, something I read and choose to completely ignore. Instead, I give a further (satirical) series of rather stupid false-truisms (truisms that aren't even true).
Once again you give the same "ad hom" that isn't actually an ad hominem, but is something you've accused me of.
Rather than a particular point, I thought it would be more entertaining to attack your 'methodology' so-to-speak, so I referenced Parmenides.
You then say "Didn't realise you were a classically educated right winger ... Come back in 20 yaers when dad's money has run out...". Now there are a few problems with this in context, not the least that it isn't true. You have just said that you wanted a system in which children are raised to be educated, and in which things are provided to all people. I lampoon this by quoting one of your (mysteriously non-imperative) "commandments" directly. You go on to give some weird comment on school and library closures. You recommend me, having accused me of being classically educated, to "read 1984". Your next post is a joke about protestors of the arrest of Tommy Robinson. (I don't care.)
I tell you why libraries are in decline. It is because people don't want to read books. You misinterpret this as "not wanting to learn". I give you a very good clip of writings by CS Lewis that are animated and narrated.
You, a person who has given such ridiculous "commandments", accuses me of being naive (obviously for giving you such an excellent reference). You make some tangential point about emotional intelligence, I could go into it (I won't), and it actually ties back and forwards into the Parmenides reference AND the Oakeshott reference.
You then say, "Also try explaining your own beliefs instead of posting someone else's". Now this is quite silly, and if you want to know why, one example is the Oakeshott quote I gave in response. The rest of the comment is quite hilarious, especially if you're following the context. Essentially teaching children to reject teachings. (Expanding on this would take a while.)
I give you two more good quotes. About the inability to see why people disagree, and the desire to "displace [another']s reasoning by yours". You later accuse me of the same thing.