Deep and Serious Debate Addressing Complex Ideas with Important Implications

[DreadFish]

This thread

I would try to contribute but, my rightness and intelligence would be swallowed up in the dark maw of ignorance that is this thread.

 

[Me Myself]

I think the OPs premises are fundamentally fundamental. There are various degrees of bagueness to which each of the words used could be upheld up to which the inherent understanding of it's message ends up covered in chocolate.

Do understand the sweetness of it please.

chocolate: definition of chocolate in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

A more careful examination of this post will clarify the greater significance of it's smalest features and how the main subject of the OP has been pawned.

I win, losers.

 

[Quagmire]

I think the OPs premises are fundamentally fundamental. There are various degrees of bagueness to which each of the words used could be upheld up to which the inherent understanding of it's message ends up covered in chocolate.

Do understand the sweetness of it please.

chocolate: definition of chocolate in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

A more careful examination of this post will clarify the greater significance of it's smalest features and how the main subject of the OP has been pawned.

I win, losers.

"Win"? You think you've won? -->?<---

HAH!!! DOUBLE HAH!!! DOUBLE HAH AND A SIDE OF "OH YEAH????"!!!!

Only I can win! Why? I'll tell you why!! I'll tell you why even if you didn't ask me why!!!

IT'S BECAUSE I BELONG TO A FAITH WHO'S CENTRAL TENET IS PEACE AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE!!!!

THAT'S WHY!!!!

AND YOU DON'T!!!

AND THIS IS WHY I HATE YOU!!!!!

THIS IS WHY I HATE ALL OF YOU!!!!

WITH A SEETHING, FESTERING HATRED THAT NO AMOUNT OF ETERNITIES COULD EVEN BEGIN TO CONTAIN!!!!

In God's name. Amen.

 

[4consideration]

I'm not even going to give that last post the dignity of a negative comment. I just wanted to let y'all know that I'd comment on the subject of this thread, but it's really beneath me.

Quite frankly, anyone who didn't begin this thread already knowing that I'm right ought to just slink away, silently nursing the painful realization that I don't even need to hear what they think, because I already know.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

4 out of 5 dead philosophers approve of this thread.

This is an offensive travesty of the most offensive offensiveness. I propose, posthaste, that we mount an expedition to travel the world, excavating the remains of those 1 out of 5 philosophers whose opinion isn't worth the dirt they rest in, and insult their bones with the most obscene and filthy ribald jokes modern man has been able to devise.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This thread

I would try to contribute but, my rightness and intelligence would be swallowed up in the dark maw of ignorance that is this thread.

You tell'm! Darned fancy pants threads like this one are what is wrong with religiousforums.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This thread

I would try to contribute but, my rightness and intelligence would be swallowed up in the dark maw of ignorance that is this thread.

I see that you continue to proceed to attempt to derail the high-brow intellectual level of this lofty thread with your petty drivel and overwhelming desire to attack all that is good and right and correct. If you had even the barest of familiarity with the profound works of Plato, you would feel immense embarrassment over your small-minded and woefully ignorant perspective and attitude. To quote Twain, "you can lead a frog to the desert, but you can't make him contribute to his 401(k)."

 

[crossfire]

I think the OPs premises are fundamentally fundamental. There are various degrees of bagueness to which each of the words used could be upheld up to which the inherent understanding of it's message ends up covered in chocolate.

Do understand the sweetness of it please.

chocolate: definition of chocolate in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

A more careful examination of this post will clarify the greater significance of it's smalest features and how the main subject of the OP has been pawned.

I win, losers.

Chocolate covered nuts, coming right up:

Be sure to share with 4consideration, as she was there with them when I needed them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I see that you continue to proceed to attempt to derail the high-brow intellectual level of this lofty thread with your petty drivel and overwhelming desire to attack all that is good and right and correct. If you had even the barest of familiarity with the profound works of Plato, you would feel immense embarrassment over your small-minded and woefully ignorant perspective and attitude. To quote Twain, "you can lead a frog to the desert, but you can't make him contribute to his 401(k)."

Your statements are a perfect blend of the fish-face fallacy and the bagel fallacies. How you wish to allude to the nudity of the Greeks is your own business, and Twain's frogs lever lept so far as they do from your grasp. Your pet is drivel, and your automobile is profound rust. What? That doesn't fit into your narrow view of scholarship? Behold the lizard is in the king's palace!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your statements are a perfect blend of the fish-face fallacy and the bagel fallacies. How you wish to allude to the nudity of the Greeks is your own business, and Twain's frogs lever lept so far as they do from your grasp. Your pet is drivel, and your automobile is profound rust. What? That doesn't fit into your narrow view of scholarship? Behold the lizard is in the king's palace!

Well met. I see someone is finally giving this thread the serious intellectual respect and treatment it so rightly deserves - nay, demands. And although I can see the epistemological, ontological, and funkimological merits put forth in your arguments, they fall short of true greatness due to your failure to even mention the neo-proto-aboriginal philosophical treatises of the middle-late-Homeric era. This grevious error cannot be overlooked, and, in fact, invalidates anything you ever said or thought, as well as anything you, or your offspring, will ever say or think for the rest of eternity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think the OPs premises are fundamentally fundamental. There are various degrees of bagueness to which each of the words used could be upheld up to which the inherent understanding of it's message ends up covered in chocolate.

Do understand the sweetness of it please.

chocolate: definition of chocolate in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

A more careful examination of this post will clarify the greater significance of it's smalest features and how the main subject of the OP has been pawned.

I win, losers.

Your apparent ability to put together jumbled sentences which have no discernible meaning indicates that you have what it takes to take part in this thread of intellectual greatness. However, using the Oxford dictionary as a reference for definitions is embarrassingly passé, and, therefore, your whole argument falls apart, "like a delicate dragonfly wing in a blender," to quote Descartes.

 

[Curious George]

Even a momentary perusal of this thread yields observations of both officious skullduggery and efficacious insight. Refusing to acknowledge the nugatory invectives and the insidious vituperation, I, haughtily choose to contemptuously ignore the caustic, acrimonious rancor, and, instead, assiduously focus on the amelioration of the provident purpose espoused by the obvious intellectuals-as opposed to the cantankerous dissenters.

Now having ascertained a lack of odious intent from several adroit intelligentsia within the confines of this thread, I, with my worries assuaged and the aforementioned conviction, aspire to proffer my erudite manifestations with the sincerest hopes of preserving the integrity of this thread.

After reviewing a didactic afflatus born in the form of a play, Click to read: A high-brow play which is too esoteric for most, I pontificated:

First- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2B5ffWR6g

Then- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDFGdc43UvA

and finally- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mQqVqRB7I
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2402804-post1.html

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

northern Denmark? You're mistaking my philosophical school. I am more of the First Philosophical School of Finland, in terms of argumentative style.
It's more impactful now you know that, I bet!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

After reviewing a didactic afflatus born in the form of a play, Click to read: A high-brow play which is too esoteric for most, I pontificated:

First- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2B5ffWR6g

Then- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDFGdc43UvA

and finally- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mQqVqRB7I

Excellent contribution! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the masterful script you so thoughtfully linked to. It is rare to encounter such an exepertly crafted work, which not only explores the depths of human emotion and experience with sensitivity and wisdom, but also so cleverly communicates truths about humanity with such insight and poignancy - a considerable find and a real gem of a literary masterpiece. Of course, as for your follow-up comments to the script, the following source is able to more clearly express my feelings on the matter, than I ever could:

[youtube]wXvrvyKhpV0[/youtube]

 

[Kilgore Trout]

northern Denmark? You're mistaking my philosophical school. I am more of the First Philosophical School of Finland, in terms of argumentative style.
It's more impactful now you know that, I bet!

This actual explains quite a lot in a very explanatory fashion, being that the First through Third Philosophical Schools of Finland have been repeatedly shown, by all the greatest thinkers of the early-mid 1980's, to be fundamentally inferior to virtually every other major, minor, augmented, and diminished schools of philosophical thought originating from the northern latitudes. I fear I initially overestimated your abilities and skills at formulating lofty arguments and engaging in high-brow discussions of the dizzying heights found in this erudite thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If nobody else has intellectual testicles which are robust enough to put forth any ontological, syllogistic tautologies of the transcendental philosophical variety which appeal to the flatulent arguments of the most profound thinkers of the late-middle-early, east-western Renaissance, then I suppose this lofty and erudite thread (of the most excellent scholarly and supremely sophisticated type) shall end on the note of my clear and obvious superiority in all things pedantic, verbose, and wordily semantic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have to admit momentary interest around the concept of flatulent arguments, but it passed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have to admit momentary interest around the concept of flatulent arguments, but it passed.

I see that you're appealing to the inestimable Kierkegaard and his treatise on gaseous emissions and his precept "whomever shall smelt it, shall be named as thee whom dealt it." Although, most casual students of philosophy inevitably fail to realize that Boyle's experiments were actually the first to confirm the correlation between the commenter of an odor, and that same commenter being the source of it. Interestingly, using only the most primitive and rudimentary scientific tools and instruments, he was also able to demonstrate the strong relationship between silence and deadliness. Whichever way one decides to cut the cheese, a passing interest in flatulence invariably leads to the expelling of much heated gas, which serves the lofty goals and purposes of this high-brow thread.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I see that you're appealing to the inestimable Kierkegaard and his treatise on gaseous emissions and his precept "whomever shall smelt it, shall be named as thee whom dealt it." Although, most casual students of philosophy inevitably fail to realize that Boyle's experiments were actually the first to confirm the correlation between the commenter of an odor, and that same commenter being the source of it. Interestingly, using only the most primitive and rudimentary scientific tools and instruments, he was also able to demonstrate the strong relationship between silence and deadliness. Whichever way one decides to cut the cheese, a passing interest in flatulence invariably leads to the expelling of much heated gas, which serves the lofty goals and purposes of this high-brow thread.

Ahhhh...I can see that you are an expert in this field. I myself have to admit to being a mere fumbler, so I hope you don't mind if I put a proposition to you, and ask your opinion?

I was involved in a serious discussion on the inverse relationship of courage and flatulence amongst diarrhea-riddled individuals. My argument was that these conditions actually allow display of TRUE bravery, but my 'friend' stated that it was more a measure of stupidity. Of course my wife slapped me upside the head and suggested it could be both brave AND stupid at the same time. What say you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ahhhh...I can see that you are an expert in this field. I myself have to admit to being a mere fumbler, so I hope you don't mind if I put a proposition to you, and ask your opinion?

I was involved in a serious discussion on the inverse relationship of courage and flatulence amongst diarrhea-riddled individuals. My argument was that these conditions actually allow display of TRUE bravery, but my 'friend' stated that it was more a measure of stupidity. Of course my wife slapped me upside the head and suggested it could be both brave AND stupid at the same time. What say you?

Fortunately, for us, the solution to this veritable dilemma was established by Aquinas, centuries ago. Whilst formulating his seminal arguments regarding the verifiability of the existence, or non-existence, of a thing (whether that thing be god, bravery, or the answer to "who left the toilet seat up?"), one must return to fundamental, axiomatic principles of a self-evident and eternal nature. Chiefly, in the case of the problematic example you provided, one must ultimately reduce the conundrum to its most basic elements and questions - and the most fundamental of truths, as masterfully argued and proven by Locke (after countless years engaged in thought of the utmost depths), is that "when one finds himself at the crossroads of doubt, one must suredly conclude that one's wife always holds the reins of truth."