Anyone? :dubious:
Wait, let me get my response ready.
“How do you know pieces of paper can’t ______? What do you base that on?”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226039 :rolleyes:
OK, you win. You are a piece of paper. Now, get your ass into the printer tray where you belong.
You, as an object, were not named ‘paper’
Nurse Ratched, I want my cigarettes!
Pieces of paper do not have fingers, nor any other appendage. This means that a piece of paper cannot type. You can obviously type. Therefor, you are not a piece of paper.
The End.
reminds me of some oldies . . .
Man walks into Doctors Office wearing nothing, but wrapped entirely in clingfilm:
Patient: Doctor, Doctor, I don’t think I’m well.
Doctor: I can clearly see your nuts.
Sheez. If you were going to parody ExecutiveJesus, at least have the imagination to become something better than freaking paper.
A new challenge! Prove Jonmarzie is not the reincarnation of Julius Caesar!
I am NOT a teapot!
I am a sugar bowl.
PROVE ME WRONG, YOU S’C’U’M’S!
Pointing out obvious fallacies in my arguments only make you look silly. Remember that. Now, get to it, Paper Worshipers.
Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?
Based on what evidence I have, you are not a piece of paper. You are simply a bunch of random electrons floating around the internet, having delusions of grandeur about being something as physical as a piece of paper.
That thread is notewothy simply due to the fact that lekatt shat on it.
A piece of paper has an accumulation of properties that have been defined by the term “paper”. If you do not have these properties, then you are not a piece of paper.
One of the main properties of the term “God” is that it’s properties of being are not wholey defined.
The one thing that is agreed on about God, a property that can be distinguisted, is that it is the ‘highest spiritual power’. Since I percieve no higher spiritual power than myself, it is correct for me to refer to myself as God.
You could use the word “paper” to define yourself. But that would be a bit needlessly confusing - as it would just be another definition for the word.
Rene Descartes was a drunken fart.
“I drink therefore I am.”
Not true. There are many cultures and societies that believe in multiple gods. For them, there is no highest spiritual power for, to believe that, one must believe that a particular God is higher than the rest. Thus, I have invalidated your definition and you are not God. Jonmarzie is not paper. I am not Sparticus.
If the gods are of equal spiritual power, then so be it. The class of “God” is still the highest spiritual power - though many share it in that culture.
That does not invalidate the concept that I am God. From where I stand, that’s exactly what I am. I am the highest spiritual power.
Also, I’m probably not your God. My control over you is quite minimal. However, I do not know what you percieve - I’m not you.
From the sound of it, I think I’d be making a safe bet in stating I am not your God.
I didn’t think this concept was going to be so difficult for Dopers to grasp.
I guess you’re just so very much smarter than us. In what may or may not be (fat chance) an unrelated note, you have made no point whatsoever.
Yes, but how does he type with those boxing gloves on?
Oh, no way he gets that freaking question 80 times a day. Why doesn’t he just go right on and answer it DELETED!! Ahahaha!
I am not at all any smarter than Dopers.
Also.
*I didn’t think this concept was going to be so difficult for Dopers to grasp. *
Let me know if you need any more clarification regarding the difference between the two statements.
You are an asshole.
You are still an asshole
Let me know if you need any clarification regarding the truth of these statements.