Note that not all weights and widths (a.k.a. “font-stretch” values) may be available for every font. Normal [400] and bold [700] weights are available for most fonts; likewise, all fonts have a “normal” width.
The die menu (🎲 ) lets you select a quote, or get a random quote. (All quotes are from Schopenhauer’s Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten.)
Select two fonts to compare them:
This is a demo of the “Gill Sans” font.
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position.
Should your opponent be in the right, but, luckily for your contention, choose a faulty proof, you can easily manage to refute it, and then claim that you have thus refuted his whole position. This is a trick which ought to be one of the first; it is, at bottom, an expedient by which an argumentum ad hominem is put forward as an argumentum ad rem. If no accurate proof occurs to him or to the bystanders, you have won the day. For example, if a man advances the ontological argument by way of proving God’s existence, you can get the best of him, for the ontological argument may easily be refuted. This is the way in which bad advocates lose a good case, by trying to justify it by an authority which does not fit it, when no fitting one occurs to them.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
0123456789
,./;'[]\−=
<>?:"{}|~!@#$%^&*()_+
å∫ç∂´ƒ©˙ˆ∆˚¬µ˜øπœ®ß†¨√∑≈¥Ω
ÅıÇÎ´Ï˝ÓˆÔÒ˜Ø∏Œ‰Íˇ¨◊„˛Á¸
≤≥÷…æ“‘«`¡™£¢∞§¶•ªº–≠
¯˘¿ÚÆ”’»`⁄€‹›fifl‡°′″·‚—±
This is a demo of the “Calibri” font.
A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position.
Should your opponent be in the right, but, luckily for your contention, choose a faulty proof, you can easily manage to refute it, and then claim that you have thus refuted his whole position. This is a trick which ought to be one of the first; it is, at bottom, an expedient by which an argumentum ad hominem is put forward as an argumentum ad rem. If no accurate proof occurs to him or to the bystanders, you have won the day. For example, if a man advances the ontological argument by way of proving God’s existence, you can get the best of him, for the ontological argument may easily be refuted. This is the way in which bad advocates lose a good case, by trying to justify it by an authority which does not fit it, when no fitting one occurs to them.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
0123456789
,./;'[]\−=
<>?:"{}|~!@#$%^&*()_+
å∫ç∂´ƒ©˙ˆ∆˚¬µ˜øπœ®ß†¨√∑≈¥Ω
ÅıÇÎ´Ï˝ÓˆÔÒ˜Ø∏Œ‰Íˇ¨◊„˛Á¸
≤≥÷…æ“‘«`¡™£¢∞§¶•ªº–≠
¯˘¿ÚÆ”’»`⁄€‹›fifl‡°′″·‚—±
(Quotation source: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten)
