Friends, gather 'round as I explain to you why you are all so inept. I shall do this even as I evince a mighty knowledge that overshadows yours, but I will be gentle, for I know that your little minds are dainty, and ill-equiped to withstand it were I to unleash the whole of my understanding upon you at once. And I mean that with all respect.
I am a Materialist through and through, to my core, down to the depths of my being. I say this without bias. I cannot be biased. I am a reasonable man. Reasonable men are not biased. So, you see, I bring no bias to my debates. Mine is the correct worldview. Yours is flawed, incomprehensible, and inexplicable. But I say that with all respect.
Do not challenge my words, for if you do, I will merely change them. Understand that I am not saying what I mean, but merely what I believe you might be capable of comprehending. And I say that with all respect.
Who among you will challenge me? For I am like the Blithey Tothe, capable of shifting from here to there, from this form to that form, from offense to defense, from imaginary to real. Yea, verily do I bear upon my massive shoulders the heavy burden of your ignorance. But I do not mind, for I am fond of each of you, my children. Now bless you, in my mighty name. Lo, I heave upon you all my respect.
Let me explain to you the fallacy in your observation. First of all, you do not support your assertion with evidence. This is a Dec Loc Disegial fallacy. Second, you come at this with a bias. That means that you are intellectualy dishonest. I am not criticising your thoughts, but merely your ideas. Please do not go away. Stay and learn by observing me.
I think industrial grade pharmaceuticals are usually indicated in order to cope with a delusional structure of the kind you exhibit, but just for a change of pace, I am going to suggest electro-convulsive therapy.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the distinction between your particular flavour of solipsism and masturbation?
And this pertains to my point exactly how? You leave me no choice but simply to reword my original post.
I am a Materialist through and through, to my core, down to the depths of my being. I say this without bias. I cannot be biased. I am a reasonable man. Reasonable men are not biased. So, you see, I bring no bias to my debates. Mine is the correct worldview. Yours is flawed, incomprehensible, and inexplicable. But I say that with all respect.
Do not challenge my words, for if you do, I will merely change them. Understand that I am not saying what I mean, but merely what I believe you might be capable of comprehending. And I say that with all respect.
Cannot everyone here see how the one who calls itself “BaGkitty” is Brittish? Am I supposed to take seriously the argument of someone who spells “flavor” with a gratuitous letter?
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Element and the Sum, the Anna and the Kata. Do not concern yourself with what I am getting at. All will be made clear as my magnificent argument unfolds. Come, join the others and behold me.
You misunderstood me. I did not say that you were British. I spoke of an hypothetical person, a Platonic Form. Apparently, the extra “t” was added by the message board software. I deny having typed it.
Libertarian… be careful with those Platonic Forms, I have a great fear of Platonic forms after almost losing an eye to the pointy bit of a number “7”.
And I thought you objectionable types, oh, sorry, I mean objectivist, nope on reflection I realize that I really meant objectionable – were Aristotelians?
Your thoughts are irrelevant. And I say that with all respect. Besides, what do you know of Aristotle, the great painter of the Mona Lisa and inventer of the helicopter?
You are also incorrect with respect to your assertion that I am an Objectivist. I am a Materialist. Do you need a straw man to conduct your argument? Clearly, all here can see that you are swiping blind at a pinata, even as I assail you with irrefutable logic.
And, if you don’t mind, could you please make some room? Others are trying to get closer that they might behold me, and thus fulfill the longings of their souls. Not that I believe in souls.
The helicopter was invented by Many Fine Minds working around the same time.
Aristotle had syphillis. It accounted for his spotty memory and erratic writing style.
The Mona Lisa wasn’t painted by the inventor of the helicopter, but by a cheap two-bit hack with an eye for the ladies. See link above for proof thereof.
The only difference between a Materialist and an Objectivist is that the former is a follower of Madonna Ciccione, and the latter is a disciple of Ayn Rand. Or to put it into words you might grasp, one admires the architecture of breasts and the other admires the best of architecture.
Get a grip. If you didn’t wander out the fire exit and go urinating in the gardens, you wouldn’t have missed your 4:00 p.m. meds.
You misunderstood what I was saying. My reference to the helicopter was a rhetorical gratis. Do you intend to deal with my argument, or merely pick at words?
Everyone can see that I am the victim of foul and spurious accusation. You have given no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that Materialism is the same as Objectivism. Is this the limit of your ability to form a coherent chain of reason? Please understand that I hold no disrespect for your moronic interpretations of history, but merely for the notions that underly them.
Let me recommend several books for you to read: Materialism: the Dyanetic Antithesis, by Me; Synthetic Understanding and Rapsoid Therapy, by Me; and finally, Argument and Rational Thought as a Means to the Progression of Reasonable Debate and Dialog: a Study in Behavioral Perception and its Manifold Implications Toward an Ontoligical Metaethics, by Me.
This rant is diametrically flawed and aesthetically lacking in hyperbolic soliloquy. The quantum postulate is formative only in the subjective medium, rather than a lycanthropic finite element of the bimodal substrate.
I have no idea what Libertarian is getting at. Therefore, to save face, I’m just going to blindly support his argument. (see, this saves me from having to think!)
Astroboy stands behind Libertarian, methodically thwaking a baseball bat into his left hand in a vaguely threatening manner… and sneering…
BTW: before anyone asks… I did not read any of the links that Lib posted; the LAN I’m on is being really squirrley, and it has taken me forever to post here… and then I had to re-boot before I could see if my post had been, um, posted…
But anyways, I stick with my former stance! Standing behind Lib, ready to kick ass at a moment’s notice…
