Deep and Serious Debate Addressing Complex Ideas with Important Implications

[Kilgore Trout]

I propose that we engage in a serious discussion and debate about sophisticated topics with far-reaching consequences for all of humanity. Furthermore, we should be as verbose, pedantic, and obfuscatory as possible in order to clearly convey our deep knowledge and masterful understanding of these complex and weighty concepts.

A few pointers and guidelines for engaging in this lofty and erudite conversation:

- Never use one word where a dozen will work. Being clear and concise opens your ideas up to direct challenge. Verbosity and vagueness are the keys to giving yourself as many ways out as possible.

- Liberally jump from one idea, or context, to another in order to display your mental dexterity and quickness. Lead your pursuer on a spirited chase through obfuscation until they eventually realize your amazing argumentative powers and give up.

- Reference great thinkers of the past as often as possible. Be sure to refer to them only by their last name. This casual association with astounding thinkers clearly expresses how thoroughly familiar you are with their thoughts, thereby displaying your mental greatness. Anyone who disagrees with you can be safely mocked, as they have no right to argue with Immortals.

- If you must resort to insults, be sure to accuse your opponent of insulting you first. This will provide you with enough self-righteous indignation to justify your own personal attacks when confronted with an argument you don't feel like countering rationally.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Additional tips and advice:

- Always provide sources which support your arguments. By sources, I mean do a "google" search and then cut and paste the first page's worth of links into your post. If someone points out that some of your sources are irrelevant or inaccurate, point out that they are ignorant and biased.

- Another note on sources: liberally use Wikipedia to provide support for your views. However, when opponents use Wikipedia in such a manner, make a grand show of mocking Wikipedia and the morons who use it as a source.

- Endless splitting of hairs and engaging in semantical nitpicking can be the keys to ultimately coming out victorious in serious, high-brow debates. Always be sure to search through multiple online dictionaries in order to find the exact shade of definition of a word you want, when doing so serves your agenda.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course. I can't begin to say how deeply touched I am of your decision to finally concede that I am right.

Now maybe we can decide what I am right about? Or will you keep avoiding that subject?

 

[DreadFish]

I dont understand why you are accusing us of doing that but, obviously it reflects on your lack of having anything of substance in your arguments

Since im not going to resort to an ad hominim, like you have been doing ever so well, I will have to disregard your comments in reference to the OP and just keep discussing with those who are able to engage in actual constructive, intelligent conversation, unlike you. :no: The main problem here is that the topic hasn't been well defined, IMO. We need to define our definitions here if we really want to get anywhere.

Obviously you need to understand your subject matter more. According to this online version of the bible, God says that we should read more, not less:

Leviticus 1:1-17 -

"And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, (Read More...)"

Matthew 19:11-12 -

"But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given. (Read More...)"

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-The-Meaning-of-Marriage/

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course. I can't begin to say how deeply touched I am of your decision to finally concede that I am right.

Now maybe we can decide what I am right about? Or will you keep avoiding that subject?

I was extremely clear in outlining and defining exactly what you were right about, as well as stating the extent and scope of your correctness. Your inability to ascertain and understand my arguments and comments regarding this subject is quite perplexing and leave me with the distinct impression that anything further I say regarding the matter at hand would not only be a waste of breath, but also an affront to all right-minded and thinking people throughout the world. I suggest you start by reviewing the complete works of all major western philosophers of the past 400 years, as well as all major developments in the realm of physics since Newton. This may help to serve enlighten you and provide you with a basic grasp of the complexity of the current subject, as well as provide you with adequate insight to comprehend my assertions and conclusions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I dont understand why you are accusing us of doing that but, obviously it reflects on your lack of having anything of substance in your arguments

I see that you are already engaging in your usual low-brow tactics of utlizing red-men and straw-herrings and the like. These argumentative fallacies you so readily rely on clearly display your utter lack of deep thought and serious conversation of the type required by this lofty thread. You may want to revisit Hume in order to gain a deeper understanding of the existential and epistemological dangers of pursuing such an obviously flawed path.

Since im not going to resort to an ad hominim, like you have been doing ever so well, I will have to disregard your comments in reference to the OP and just keep discussing with those who are able to engage in actual constructive, intelligent conversation, unlike you. :no: The main problem here is that the topic hasn't been well defined, IMO. We need to define our definitions here if we really want to get anywhere.

To quote the brilliant and astute master of philosophical Truth and Wisdom, Trout, "the last bastion of the withered and petty intellect is the gross and flagrant use of the smilie." It is clear in Trout's statement that only those of the lowest, low-brow, browiness utilize these intellectualy bankrupt face symbols in lieu of profound wordiness and run-on sentences.

Obviously you need to understand your subject matter more. According to this online version of the bible, God says that we should read more, not less:

Leviticus 1:1-17 -

Matthew 19:11-12 -

BIBLE VERSES ABOUT THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE

I, and the rest of the population of intellectually superior peoples of the world, cannot help but weep at your pathetic ignorance in this regard. As Nietzsche, the undisputed master of proto-divine meta-philosophy, said, "if God wanted man to read more, he would have invented the Kindle." Any attempt to argue against this point is a clear admission on your part that your position holds no merit, vis-a-vis, etcetera, veni vidi vici, and so forth.

 

[DreadFish]

I see that you are already engaging in your usual low-brow tactics of utlizing red-men and straw-herrings and the like. These argumentative fallacies you so readily rely on clearly display your utter lack of deep thought and serious conversation of the type required by this lofty thread. You may want to revisit Hume in order to gain a deeper understanding of the existential and epistemological dangers of pursuing such an obviously flawed path.



To quote the brilliant and astute master of philosophical Truth and Wisdom, Trout, "the last bastion of the withered and petty intellect is the gross and flagrant use of the smilie." It is clear in Trout's statement that only those of the lowest, low-brow, browiness utilize these intellectualy bankrupt face symbols in lieu of profound wordiness and run-on sentences.



I, and the rest of the population of intellectually superior peoples of the world, cannot help but weep at your pathetic ignorance in this regard. As Nietzsche, the undisputed master of proto-devine meta-philosophy, said, "if God wanted man to read more, he would have invented the Kindle." Any attempt to argue against this point is a clear admission on your part that your position holds no merit, vis-a-vis, etcetera, veni vidi vici, and so forth.

I see that you took time and effort to create an apparently well-thought out post. Unfortunately, I will not reply in kind and, instead, will say something insignificant and non-sequitur that just proves to establish myself in an untouchable position.

1 Corinthians 5:2 - And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I see that you took time and effort to create an apparently well-thought out post. Unfortunately, I will not reply in kind and, instead, will say something insignificant and non-sequitur that just proves to establish myself in an untouchable position.

Although your tactic is not without merit, of a sort, it is, unfortunately, a case of "too little, too late," or, as the ancient Sodomites used to say, "he who uses another's butt plug, invites calamity and itching." What you fail to grasp, is that you have already been touched. In fact, you have not only been touched, but also fondled, groped, and rubbed down with bacon grease. And although this may give you a delicious smell when fried, it leaves you in an intellectually untenable position, akin to Aquinas putting Lewis in a figurative choke-hold.

1 Corinthians 5:2 - And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

As is usually the case with scriptural amateurs, they forget to account for the original Greek definitions of much of the bible. For example, as any serious bible scholar knows, "puffed up" should read "booty-licious" and "done this deed" should read "got his groove on." The ramifications of this should be clear, even to the simple-minded.

 

[DreadFish]

Although your tactic is not without merit, of a sort, it is, unfortunately, a case of "too little, too late," or, as the ancient Sodomites used to say, "he who uses another's butt plug, invites calamity and itching." What you fail to grasp, is that you have already been touched. In fact, you have not only been touched, but also fondled, groped, and rubbed down with bacon grease. And although this may give you a delicious smell when fried, it leaves you in an intellectually untenable position, akin to Aquinas putting Lewis in a figurative choke-hold.



As is usually the case with scriptural amateurs, they forget to account for the original Greek definitions of much of the bible. For example, as any serious bible scholar knows, "puffed up" should read "booty-licious" and "done this deed" should read "got his groove on." The ramifications of this should be clear, even to the simple-minded.

Of course the translation is right, it wouldn't be allowed to be translated if it wasn't right. It proves to reason that, if the bible is divinely inspired by God, the translations would be too (all 200 of them). Thats only because of the tower of Babel. God made different translations on purpose. This has already been addressed by God:

Mark 10:10 - And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same [matter].

 

[Falvlun]

I haven't read the thread, but I am going to post anyway, since my comments and cogitations are far too important to be detained for the time it would take to read the inferior drivel that no doubt pollutes this thread.

In fact, the intelligence within this thread, and its relative importance, has just risen at least 10 degrees, due to my exceptional presence. You're welcome.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm just going to declare victory right here and save us all a lot of time.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm hereby requesting the information for the utility of this futile effort of approaching this topic by mere arbitrary words. The feasibility of such attempts have been, according to Buffy Hillcrest--famous butt-plugger of ancient Antioch--rather meager and linger on the edge of risible and unsubstantiated ephemeral subjects. Henceforth, neither here nor there but the winner takes it all... uhm... what was the question again?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Blargle

 

[Curious George]

I am thoroughly willing to actively and fastidiously engage in such loquacious logorrhea; yet, I cannot help puzzling about the potential surreptitious and likely sardonic motivations that underlie this post: Is this deviation from the banausic brutality of your oft fescennine quips merely another clandestine show of schadenfreude? Or simply a vernacular exercise of our cerebral lexicon manifest via self-deprecating jest? For, we all, at times, exhibit pleonastic tendencies or excrete cacologies. Do we not?

Thus, if you endeavor to mock the inherent character existing within us all, then by all means let us masquerade in our grandiose verbiage and challenge our wordsmith abilities while issuing forth raspberries toward those serious facades we oft proudly trumpet as ourselves. However, if this is a grandiloquent gesture of haughtiness pointed at those who fumble yet strive towards more complete self expression-so you and/or others can dismiss such posters as jejune gobemouche- then I care not to partake in such epicaricacy; And, I shall let you continue in your tete-a-tete with whomever gets the esoteric jeer.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As is usually the case with scriptural amateurs, they forget to account for the original Greek definitions of much of the bible. For example, as any serious bible scholar knows, "puffed up" should read "booty-licious" and "done this deed" should read "got his groove on." The ramifications of this should be clear, even to the simple-minded.

Booty-licious has nothing to do with 'Puffed up'.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I haven't read the thread, but I am going to post anyway, since my comments and cogitations are far too important to be detained for the time it would take to read the inferior drivel that no doubt pollutes this thread.

In fact, the intelligence within this thread, and its relative importance, has just risen at least 10 degrees, due to my exceptional presence. You're welcome.

If I thought you had in your possession even the most basic of grasps of the fundamentals of rational and logical systems of thought, I might deign to lower myself to such depths of intellectual indigence as to be able to make myself understood by one such as yourself. However, as it is unmistakably and irrefutably clear that this is, to quote Emerson, "the passing pipe dreams of bovine feces in May," I will simply turn my nose up at your pungently odoriferous ramblings and wince in derision.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You put the gas into sagacious.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm just going to declare victory right here and save us all a lot of time.

I see that you're the type of debater, common to these jaundiced times, who goes straight for the throat. However, as I am well-versed with all the esoteric koans of the great Eastern philosophers of all the most enlightened ages, I will simply defuse your clumsy and misguided thrusts by denying the existence of my throat, thereby removing your target. And before you counter with the bumbling notion that removing my throat will remove my ability to bring oxygen to the cells of my body, I must inform you that philosophical enlightenment and True Wisdom are the true oxygen of life, which is why your face grows bluer by the moment.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm hereby requesting the information for the utility of this futile effort of approaching this topic by mere arbitrary words. The feasibility of such attempts have been, according to Buffy Hillcrest--famous butt-plugger of ancient Antioch--rather meager and linger on the edge of risible and unsubstantiated ephemeral subjects. Henceforth, neither here nor there but the winner takes it all... uhm... what was the question again?

Your words are so confused and garbled as to become meaningless strings of arbitrary syllables, confounding even the most thorough of analyses and examinations. I see that you are an enlightened thinker heavy with the knowledge of experience, gained through semantic battling with a host of lesser minds. I look forward to dismantling your artificially inflated ego as easily as my keen intellect slices through the butter of ignorance.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Blargle

It is clear from your comment that you are somewhat educated in the philosophical mysteries explored by the great thinkers of northern Denmark during the neo-windmill period of the enlightenment. And, although this is a good start for forming a solid fundamental basis for developing the ability to argue in a brisk and refreshing manner, it clearly shows your unfamiliarity with the Acroamatic principles necessary to capably synthesize argumentation that will stand up to the level of analytic scrutiny you will likely encounter in this intellectually daunting thread.