Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Anti-ism-ismist

  1. #1 The Anti-ism-ismist 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Homouniversalis says::
    The view that isms are wrong is inheritantly an ism. It's anti-ism-ism. The whole concept is a logical fallacy. I can understand people grow tired of isms, but I never stated that I followed discordianism completely. I just found a lot of it in myself.
    The point of contention: logical fallacy.

    When we claim something is 'wrong', we also claim an acceptance of it as demoralization.
    Therefore, if we say nihilism, existentialism, or ethical consequentialism is wrong we also claim that to be nihilist, an existentialist, or a consequentialist is blatant demoralization..

    Now.
    If we claim that any of these isms are wrong based on personal convictions that absolute authority does exist then we too are an ism, as we have replaced that which we object to with an ism of our own.
    We are not only their negation but their replacement.
    We are their anti-ism.
    A nihilist's anti-ism is the creationist, the Taoist, and the Hindu.

    So for either a creationist, or a Taoist, or the Hindu (who are Anti-ismists) to say that isms are wrong is logical fallacy.
    For either of them to claim that all they are doing is ‘mocking’ is logical fallacy.

    Howver, say we find a “nihilist” romping through a bookstore with his eyes shifting; we know him from his habit of being intellectually superficial , capturing once again in his person that timeless Socratic spirit of answering questions never asked, out loud, so that the world could see that he knows and they do not.
    One gets regaled with impressive nomenclature and short sound bytes where he explains what each theory means albeit erroneously, but little to nothing on a personal logic encapsulating his character.

    In short, we take him for a name-dropping, theory-swalloing dandy and, like we all do with pretentious “ugly girls”, we can’t help but wonder.

    So, is this kind of negation an ism?
    Are we committing a logical fallacy?
    Is wondering at or being confused by this person a contradiction?
    All you are doing is pointing out his looking like a fool.

    A Dadaist or a ‘goth’ rebelling against ‘isms’ are in themselves hypocritical isms, but when Keppler found that Tycho’s data was wrong, was he committing a logical fallacy?

    Did this make him an Anti-ism-ismist?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    Thread about petty losers who hide behind, and cling to ideologies and external factors!
    How do these little so called shells function whilst being filled with delusional specks of finding worth and self-definition?!

    Nah, I’m kidding.

    For one, they turn a blind eye to anything that might resemble or remind them from their earlier features.
    Because when the inconsistent persona, the puppet, the self-delusional finds satisfaction and content from aspects that hold no value outside the pseudo-intellectual system that has emerged from reading and scraping the context of Nietzsche, they are at this point gone too far and can not be redeemed. The old seem juvenile.

    They will frown, scourge, stomp their scrawny legs to the ground and put their hands to their ears and yell “LA LA LA LA LA LA!” - Their worth has become too grand for the objectively functioning more demeaning, profane, provocative and objective.

    Right?

    Simple really: Between the two ‘contrasts’, where is the interest for influence when the level of ‘deepness’ luxates this much.
    This because of definitions. Think of an anti-isimist criticizing Plato, nihilists and Nietzsche.
    Sounds pretentious – because you appointed definitions, even though he might have valid points.

    The mindset of these (side note: the people fitting these descriptions, that I’ve come across, were all flaming faggots, real artsy fartsy faggots - flaming homosexual beasts.) Nietzscheans (or any philosopher, I aint dissin the dog, homeboy), or rather spigots of originality, evolve around niggardly sawn together conversations, contributive tasks and methods.
    With no room for the ones who don’t want to dive into his deepness.

    For example; this rancid defense mechanism that calls himself well-rounded, solid, experience ridden and rational human-being might shush those that he feels to present contrasts.

    These contrasts – of course – exist merely inside the shapeshifter’s head, for the concrete reality of the objections and provocations that the contrast demonstrates are simply summoned to enforce a different view.

    Another ism.


    To intervene with the phenomenon’s of arrogance and worth that confiscate much from the potential that can ‘distinguish one from the masses’, one must take part in the risky venture of holding a mirror in front of the patient in order to reveal the foolish mile high construct that was build on muddy grounds.
    Which will never happen. The intervener has his construct as well.

    Now, if the people who act in disharmony with the self-refined ‘philosophers’, the people who do not act in accord with the conducts and codes that are bestowed to clarify ‘their’ discussion, then the mood changes into a “I am holier than thou; I needn’t to take thou into consideration nor do I need to respect the logic of my objectors”.
    For they lack the common ground.

    Subjectivity against subjectivity and objectivity against objectivity.

    Actually, the perfect example is as simple as the religion forum: Christian vs. Atheist wars.

    The self-proclaimed ‘rehabilitators of sense’ failing to grasp the principles of the arguments presented.
    It’s their way or the highway, which – when appointed to exchange of thoughts, regardless of the medium – is a depraved posture used by fascists.

    And this complicates the issues because the ideologies that have molded these characters into what they now are change perpetually, yet always following something. And as the people stuck in these molds are conjoined and in their minds consistent and rational, the pretext of thought exchange becomes secondary.
    Chosen to be a parrot; repeat, repeat – do not criticize.


    Objective study over variety of ideologies, isms, is another thing than condoning them, automatically.
    Respect for an ism is not a self-definition.

    I don’t think no one truly casts aside the cloak of influence.

    Finding interest does not mean one should turn on the clinging sensation.

    The movie “cool hand luke” comes to mind.
    It all comes down to follow the leader, really.

    But you’re placing people in two boxes: those who paint their portrait with isms, and those who leave it blank. The blankism, haha.

    Come to think of it, I am the peacock, the arrogant man of today.
    Though, I’m not rebelling against isms, maybe a bit against the conduct of ismists.
    So whenever you tell me I am advocating an ideology, or rather, appoint value to my view on things, I become a walking contradiction.
    So be it.
    Define me, I wont. Simple as that.
    You know… for the same reason I don’t want to take an IQ test; I want to think I have higher IQ than I really do.
    Realization over little silly things or grander things works for me.
    I don’t try to affect; as long as things amuse me, I’m golden.

    Still, it is a lot harder to find loopholes for defining someone when compared to copying a few phrases from someone who openly explains what strategies he/she follows.


    The thing, my man, is this: Do YOU define yourself with an ism?
    If you do, you take some pride in it which molds you to somewhat evolve around the fact that – you define yourself with an ism.

    And when I can’t think of an ideology to define my ethics, morals, behaviour etc...
    It changes everything, for me.

    And now I’m taking the risk of sounding pretentious.
    Analyses do not hurt me, because I don’t define myself.

    Go and start your own ism: The Contrast for everythingism.
    Muahaha.

    In other words, you all suck so terribly.
    And Wittgenstein rules, unless you also think he does.
    Then he sucks.

    And when you tell me I’m a radical rebel, or a fightclub terrorist.
    Then I’m a Christian.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Perfect:
    And when you tell me I’m a radical rebel, or a fightclub terrorist.
    Then I’m a Christian.
    No, you're a cocksucking mole.

    One that clenched it-
    But you’re placing people in two boxes: those who paint their portrait with isms, and those who leave it blank. The blankism, haha.
    Precisely.

    Actually this thread neither mocks those who've engendered an external philosophy or those who haven't any at all.

    How is the knowing of self possible without too knowing the non-self? Too, how can you know the size of your mind without first comparing?
    And as we're all opinionated creatures then we’re simply an amalgam of agreement and disagreement with externals- and I don’t care how far about the herd some profess to be by regurgitating the "I don't give a shit' eulogy.

    Because you do.

    Therefore resist nothing, compare nothing, make no claims whatever on anything and only then can you claim a neutrality.
    Which for the thinking being is impossible.
    This is why all relativists are fancy liars.

    That said- this thread is mostly the taking apart of dude's argument- Homuniversalis equating my pointing out inconsistencies if not outright fraudulence in his borrowed philosophy to being an anti-ism IS what is logically fucked.

    Two:
    And this complicates the issues because the ideologies that have molded these characters into what they now are change perpetually, yet always following something. And as the people stuck in these molds are conjoined and in their minds consistent and rational, the pretext of thought exchange becomes secondary.
    "Stuck' is irrational, so you're missing an ir-.

    At any rate, bingo.

    Here's the m.o when up against these cultured, royal swamps of commonality. Questioning becomes threat, so the reaction? Rand puts so beautifully:

    "All this (Abrasas: emotive reaction) is accompanied by raise eyebrows, shrugs, grunts, snickers, and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendos and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval"- The Virtue of Selfishness

    (In)satnity with his muddy lol's.
    Let alone silence- ha, ha, ha, he, he, he and lol hey look I'im a big man and can beat you up and odd silnce, you stupid hyena- all a confession of intellectual impotence.
    All this kind of person is capable of is disapproval, silence, disapproving silence, indifference.
    Take your pick.

    When's the last time he made you think?
    Or resembled his doing it?
    He disapporves of you, you know.


    These contrasts – of course – exist merely inside the shapeshifter’s head, for the concrete reality of the objections and provocations that the contrast demonstrates are simply summoned to enforce a different view.

    Another ism

    True.

    But you can't catch me yet- I've get to claim an absolute.
    That we're all opinionated is as given as your mother.

    Simple really: Between the two ‘contrasts’, where is the interest for influence when the level of ‘deepness’ luxates this much.
    This because of definitions. Think of an anti-isimist criticizing Plato, nihilists and Nietzsche.
    Sounds pretentious – because you appointed definitions, even though he might have valid points.
    Ha, ha.
    Eat me- how is critizicing a body politic the same as pushing an agenda?
    Isms are in themselves propaganda, they all seek to influence.

    If all I do is call Platonic Idealisms worthless bull for the mentally dishonest, as it neither adds nor subtracts from my knowledge base, nor gives me hope, joy, even anger at being so deluded- in short, its just there complicating things without first solving anything- have I claimed moral ground?


    Still, it is a lot harder to find loopholes for defining someone when compared to copying a few phrases from someone who openly explains what strategies he/she follows.
    Yet, none of this is as hard as attempting to communicating with a self-righteous voice box though.
    Must admit.

    Reminds me of fishing and trying to catch a slippery one with your hands.
    This would not be Homuniversalis, though (the self-righteous part)- I'm just saying.

    I become a walking contradiction.
    We all are more or less.

    Good example- 98% of forum members claim to being misanthropic loners......yet fill their solitude WITH PEOPLE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    First of all; I lost all interest in this 'shit' after my initial post was modified, without a trace.

    It is one thing to be a whiny bitch and another to d i s c o m p o s e my views when you do not state that you’re the moron removing structures from my charity.

    Next time just delete the whole thing. Don’t maim.


    Yet...

    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    No, you're a cocksucking mole.

    I’m like one day going to show you, and stuff.
    Without profanity, lol, and rofl. Cuz’ this is more intuligent.

    But yet so boring.

    Therefore:
    Oh shut the fuck up, when you’re done probing for future preferences, that is.
    Next time a crack for rehashing non-conformity presents itself – you slip trough the hands of the Niitzeans like a slippery one - cool.
    Unless your horny state moistens you up with glue.




    Actually this thread neither mocks those who've engendered an external philosophy or those who haven't any at all.

    How is the knowing of self possible without too knowing the non-self? Too, how can you know the size of your mind without first comparing?
    And as we're all opinionated creatures then we’re simply an amalgam of agreement and disagreement with externals- and I don’t care how far about the herd some profess to be by regurgitating the "I don't give a shit' eulogy.

    Because you do.

    Therefore resist nothing, compare nothing, make no claims whatever on anything and only then can you claim a neutrality.
    Which for the thinking being is impossible.
    This is why all relativists are fancy liars.


    The “I don’t give a shit eulogy” is not excluding one from the herd.
    Most people don’t give a shit.

    What I rather was trying to imply was that: Being aware of the contexts that reside in our bored medium - Insight and appreciation without direct, forced involvement is not a defining aspect. Objective and external involvement over external features.
    The unimaginative populous feel the need to absorb every signal from the spruce – in order to segregate themselves into individuality.

    And as this might be a fancy lie – at least there are no self-defining conclusions drawn for the perpetrators of isms to jerk off over.
    Make claims do whatever and anything, but don’t do it to ‘perfect’ yourself - for it is a lost cause.

    What is that shit anyways, perfecting oneself trough ideologies?
    In search for spiritual enlightenment.
    “Reading this book really had such an effect on me. I no longer look at the world the same way, now I’m doing yoga three times a week and wearing a tutu. “

    Yeah... quite an effect.

    Just like the guy who gets stuck on Nietzsche. Can’t take him merely as an interesting persona, as a philosopher… but has to point out the effects and the deep levels of understanding towards this and that which he raises in him.
    “I can like SO relate to…” Articulated in an impressive manner at a social event.


    The excessive layers that most people coat themselves with are – of course - the key point.
    As well as the functionality, accord and the symphony that hold these aspects to be consistent – consistent for the subjects, at least.
    If it doesn’t bother you, then good for you. But if the bitching and defensive stances commence, like in homo’s case. Then it comes down to being non-consistent, not content and claiming to be ‘on the way there’ or already there.
    Why else would one turn on the blindness when facing criticism and continue the process towards progress?



    That said- this thread is mostly the taking apart of dude's argument- Homuniversalis equating my pointing out inconsistencies if not outright fraudulence in his borrowed philosophy to being an anti-ism IS what is logically fucked.
    Come to think of it: there is a scent of trying to find excuses for being a ‘radical’ in this thread.
    Don’t take me wrong. But when a mien for an ‘alternative’ conduct rises, one does research on the subject to identify the ramifications of it.

    Is it worthy?

    Though, no one replied with their opinions which makes this a tad redundant.
    Which is fucking funny when you think about the premise.

    Trying to find ways past this definite ‘nonsense’ that one dwells in, in order to feel different.
    Different and still fitting in and not turning into an appalling Goth with weak insight and thought patterns.

    Searching for a definition that you can identify with - you to identify and others to approve and wonder.

    And it looks awesome!


    (In)satnity with his muddy lol's.
    Let alone silence- ha, ha, ha, he, he, he and lol hey look I'im a big man and can beat you up and odd silnce, you stupid hyena- all a confession of intellectual impotence.
    All this kind of person is capable of is disapproval, silence, disapproving silence, indifference.
    Take your pick.

    When's the last time he made you think?
    Or resembled his doing it?
    He disapporves of you, you know.
    Right on *passes the joint*.

    I pick disapproving silence. Though, the note I sent about the maiming of my post contained the words; fascist, blind, weak, egg-shell and fucking.

    I guess graphic logos are more important than nyances.


    Eat me- how is critizicing a body politic the same as pushing an agenda?
    Isms are in themselves propaganda, they all seek to influence.

    If all I do is call Platonic Idealisms worthless bull for the mentally dishonest, as it neither adds nor subtracts from my knowledge base, nor gives me hope, joy, even anger at being so deluded- in short, its just there complicating things without first solving anything- have I claimed moral ground?
    Just there complicating things? Well, there's your moral ground.
    You find that distasteful and criticise.

    And It is not pushing an agenda like the political aware faggots push theirs. Rather, this is about you and your mindset.

    Pushing an individual agenda, pushing your sense of self towards a state that does not regurgitate ideologies but is aware of them and those who practise them with a follower mentality.
    They are your contrasts. And you love it.

    A fancy lie? Perhaps, but at least the agenda is interesting - and different

    They are your contrasts. And you love it.


    Good example- 98% of forum members claim to being misanthropic loners......yet fill their solitude WITH PEOPLE.
    I'm with the speck of "chosen solitude".
    Few weeks alone in the middle of the forrest by the lake.

    And no, not the 'rich bored kid with the summer cottage'.

    4 million summer houses and a 5 million populous.
    cultural thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    It intriges me how much knowledge you (apparantly) have of me. I have learned much from Nietzsche and from Discordianism, and thus I call myself a discordianist. Does that mean I seek to define myself through discordianism? Not in my case. I simply honour discordianism by acknowledging that it is part of me, like it is part of anyone who has read about it.

    When I would seek to define myself, I could not possible do so by stating I am a discordian, or even a christian. It can never encompass the complete persona, the complete person.

    Anyway, I'm always curious for changing myself for the better or the worse. Change is always fun. What do you feel that I should change about myself? How do you feel I would elevate and reach beyond the "pseudo-intellectuals" and be intellectual?

    By the way, would saying I am intellectual once I have reached such a state not be an ism as well?

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Change is always fun.
    Then you are merely doing a make-over, a travesty, not change.


    What do you feel that I should change about myself? How do you feel I would elevate and reach beyond the "pseudo-intellectuals" and be intellectual?
    Please! Please. Just not more intellectuals.
    If you want to be an intellectual, then put on glasses (of whatever kind, so many are trendy today, really, the dictate of fashion is extremely user-friendly this season), and every now and then say "Derrida". Make sure that you go to greatest lenghts to not be understandable to anyone. Do your best to answer questions in the most useless and derailing manner. If you smoke, give it up. If you don't smoke, start smoking. Always be perfectly polite, and then, when nobody expects it (for your audience are a bunch of nobodies who see you as their enlightenment, yes, oh yes, this is to be your attitude towards your audience if you wish to be an intellectual) top that with a carefully placed "shit". Let them all see your shock potential! Yay. An intellectual must shock, so concentrate on that. To add some spice, make sure you don't just make people realize things -- but embarrass them into realization. This is your intellectual victory.
    And always keep repeating to yourself, but hell forbid anyone should hear you: "I am better than you, I am better than you, I am better than you."
    This is an intellectual.


    By the way, would saying I am intellectual once I have reached such a state not be an ism as well?
    Yes, a disgusting euphemISM of human stupidity.


    * * *
    HomoUniversalis, this is not directed at you. I have something against "intellectuals".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    HomoUniversalis, this is not directed at you. I have something against "intellectuals".
    I don't. I despise the people fitting the category you describe, however. I do believe there are some people that fit the tag intellectual who are in fact very smart people and who are what the word originally was meant to reference to.

    I don't smoke. Would you recommend sigars or a pipe?

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Short on time yet can't resist-
    I don't smoke. Would you recommend sigars or a pipe?
    An M80.

    Yes, Abraxas is pathetic for this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    It intriges me how much knowledge you (apparantly) have of me. I have learned much from Nietzsche and from Discordianism, and thus I call myself a discordianist. Does that mean I seek to define myself through discordianism? Not in my case. I simply honour discordianism by acknowledging that it is part of me, like it is part of anyone who has read about it.

    When I would seek to define myself, I could not possible do so by stating I am a discordian, or even a christian. It can never encompass the complete persona, the complete person.

    Anyway, I'm always curious for changing myself for the better or the worse. Change is always fun. What do you feel that I should change about myself? How do you feel I would elevate and reach beyond the "pseudo-intellectuals" and be intellectual?

    By the way, would saying I am intellectual once I have reached such a state not be an ism as well?

    Mr U

    C’mon now, you’re simply an example.
    A corpse ready for experimenting.

    An interesting topic emerged from a few silly remarks – deal with it.
    Nothing personal I’m sure.

    Don’t try and make this completely about yourself, no one gives a shit.
    You’re not bright enough to debunk and vain enough to enjoy the attention.

    Here you are explaining what you are trough your subjective existence, trough unimaginative reality. Defined with a hint of that and a touch if this, and if you are content with these features then why the defensive stance?

    You question the areas that ‘include’ you. Can you see how shy you are?
    Strike that, you pervert.
    You want advice because you can not study the rapport between what was said in the general manner and what was aimed towards you.

    You still seek to define yourself, which is the point. It doesn’t matter if you can accomplish anything – you will still try.
    I bet you find psycho-analyses intriguing and accurate.

    It’s not about what you are nor is it about being consistent and practicing what you preach.
    It’s about the effects of the external, not the external itself. And it’s about the fact that you ask for an advice.
    From a little prick like me, hah.
    That says enough.

    And please man… stop asking questions that are already pondered here.
    That is retarded.
    Didn’t you read the posts?

    ---

    Oh water. What are you doing here? Having intelligent conversations?
    Changing something?

    Well, at least you wish you are. Hence the little subtle “dat so awwwwful” hinters.

    Well Miss bignose, the deal is that you didn’t touch the subject you merely vented off some silly steamy drivel about how you can’t comprehend the messages and how you find the langue appalling.
    Well tough luck, I’m sure many internet pussy hunters would be happy to have a Slovene über-sexy beast running around after them… learning their language and giving out tips on how to be cool.

    Still, your drivel does nothing for me, it didn’t even raise questions.
    Therefore I shall commence the wannabe intellectual cocky ways and tell you to go fuck yourself.


    And fuck your state of finding and recognizing ‘intellectuals’ as well.
    You are creating contrasts, drawing conclusions and defining someone of being something… for example, an intellectual.
    And that's allright.
    But what happened to the premise?

    By the way, when you murmur about fostering words according to their true definitions: you shoot yourself in the leg when you use the word ‘intellectual’ as you do.

    Looky: “One way for new meanings or new connotations to emerge is a lack of actual etymological knowledge (which applies to most users), and so a connection/converge betwen two words may be easier made -- based esp. on specific socio-cultural particularities.” - Water


    I might be way off here and everywhere but let’s (t)roll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Perrrrrrrrfectttt. You wannabe bigmouth. (You can't even do that right. Shame shame.)



    Oh water. What are you doing here? Having intelligent conversations?
    Changing something?
    I was waiting for my birthday.


    Well Miss bignose, the deal is that you didn’t touch the subject you merely vented off some silly steamy drivel about how you can’t comprehend the messages and how you find the langue appalling.
    To talk about intellectuals in an interesting manner would be like making an interesting movie about boredom: Sure, it can be done, but it would betray its subject.


    Well tough luck, I’m sure many internet pussy hunters would be happy to have a Slovene über-sexy beast running around after them… learning their language and giving out tips on how to be cool.
    You're just jealous because you don't get my adoration.


    Still, your drivel does nothing for me, it didn’t even raise questions.
    Therefore I shall commence the wannabe intellectual cocky ways and tell you to go fuck yourself.
    Put down that copy of "Nietzsche for pussies" this instant!


    And fuck your state of finding and recognizing ‘intellectuals’ as well.
    You are creating contrasts, drawing conclusions and defining someone of being something… for example, an intellectual.
    And that's allright.
    But what happened to the premise?
    An "intellectual" is a living ism, mind you.


    By the way, when you murmur about fostering words according to their true definitions: you shoot yourself in the leg when you use the word ‘intellectual’ as you do.

    Looky: "One way for new meanings or new connotations to emerge is a lack of actual etymological knowledge (which applies to most users), and so a connection/converge betwen two words may be easier made -- based esp. on specific socio-cultural particularities." - Water


    I might be way off here and everywhere
    You are. It is a common old-fashioned linguistic elitism from the school of prescriptive grammar to denigrate what the "average user" of language produces – as if that were somehow less true to language, less important, a mistake. (You are under that spell.)

    The "true definition" of a word is an ideal, a myth, actually.
    Now, with the tradition of written dictionaries, we are fooled into thinking that a word has a static definition that is to remain for ever and ever, that that definition is permanent. And that we are to use the dictionary as the norm we can always go back to and correct ourselves.
    But this means forgetting that the dictionary is empirically compiled from actual language use, use by "the simple, uneducated users of language".

    Lack of etymological knowledge is only bad if you are a linguist. But that a bunch of a few educated smartasses should dictate what a language is to be is nothing but cheap elitism playing on the guilt of the uneducated user who has been convinced into thinking it is bad to lack linguistic knowledge.
    The average user is far less concerned about language change than the linguist. The linguist has a lot of theoretical and practical reconciling to do when language change takes place – and this bugs him.

    If we'd not be bound by dictionaries, language change would happen faster – and the users would not have trouble with it.


    but let’s (t)roll.
    Let's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    Bleh blah. You are the linguist, the scholar.

    What do you think you are? A self proclaimed architect?
    Are you from a biased utopia that contains integrated cultural and definite etymological archetypes designed by you?
    No, but you wish you were.
    And I should follow your dotty definitions

    You do realize that when I walk away from this awesome medium that is this forum – I am not experiencing your dictations and ramifications.
    I am not in sync with your little linguistic lumps of shit.

    Here’s a fact:

    Intellectual is not an equivalent to a dumbass for me.

    Being an intellectual is not following an ideology.
    The ideology, however, is placed upon a person dwelling in the molds of it.
    Placed upon - by you.

    Intellectual is this:
    Of or relating to the intellect.
    Rational rather than emotional.
    Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
    Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
    Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.



    It is not your theoretical or practical decision.

    So basically what you are doing is defending your stance where the word intellectual means people who contradict the habits of smoking, wear cool glasses and derail topics etc…

    Tough luck sister, but I will use the definitions that are not designed via your fixative mindset.
    So, unless I learn English trough a goddamn medium designed solely for the purpose - nuances, culture, history and everything thought in and coexisting - then you’re right.

    Learn English trough your position?

    But the thrill is that the process of adopting another language borrows the bases from ones own cultural position.
    For example: You appointing circumstances, aesthetics and content to something that I’ve learned to mean its original intent and you expect me to digest that petty sample of your rationalization?

    Fuck that. This is a stand.

    I am not defending ignorance either, which would be your next sad basis.
    I trust you see the futileness of forming an argument of defenitions over A FUCKING MODEL THAT RESIDES ONLY IN YOUR VAT OF EXPERIENCES AND CULTURAL VIEWS.


    So, when you expect someone to follow your lead to the pap you’re preparing, you intransigently abandon the already transcendent values residing in mediums sharing common language and varied models when using that language.
    And this is what you’re defending.

    What’s next?
    Bling bling and aight?



    You're just jealous because you don't get my adoration
    Yeah, that’s why I’m kissing your ass you schmuck.

    Put down that copy of "Nietzsche for pussies" this instant!
    I do not read Nietzsche because of people like you.
    Diminishing imbecile.
    Now, go and understand the bible.


    By the way.
    What’s this “intellectual is an ism” rollick. Weren’t you just a post ago categorizing intellectuals as individuals sharing irritating features – features that irritate you?
    You know, telling the world they are idiots?

    Don’t you think that you kind of contradict the whole premise of the ‘ism of intelligence’?

    That ism of intellect of yours is like so rock n roll and shit.

    And I thought it was:

    Exercise or application of the intellect.
    Devotion to exercise or development of the intellect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Hilarious.
    What...has happened to my shitty thread? Why, scatology of course.

    I.love.SHIT.

    Perfect:
    I’m like one day going to show you, and stuff.
    Without profanity, lol, and rofl. Cuz’ this is more intuligent.

    But yet so boring.
    So it is.

    But this thread has long since lost my interest.

    See it could’ve been an intellectual wet spot where the Inanities swarm to pick at the 'fuck' and ‘shit’ in every post- like grown adults sifting for tomato seeds in the kiddie's feces ( how sophisticated, think about it) but no.

    Its...gone silent.
    Or even to defend some ism.
    But, again, no.
    Like everything else on this forum (which I am, however, beginning to like though).
    I hear Tiassa's back.


    Homuniversalis:

    Well, you're fascinated with revenge aren't you?
    Consider this a personal study for your collection, I did not like you pointing out a "logical fallacy" in my comments concerning you not in the thread addressing you, but in a PM where I could not see you.

    Seeing as all I have of you is the forum.
    And what you put in it.
    Which shows people your mind.
    Then a common deduction was that you are dabbling.

    I could, however, be wrong.

    Point being that I don't see how something like looking down at a physics problem and pointing out a variable is wrong could be labeled a logical fallacy.
    Unless you build a cult around pointing out wrong variables in stubborn formulas, then this simple pointing out of errors could then be regarded as Anti-Stubbornism and its practioners anti-FlawedVariabologists.
    For the Anti-FlawedVariabologist to claim he is not an ism is a logical fallacy.


    So, when you says this:
    "The view that isms are wrong is inheritantly an ism. It's anti-ism-ism. The whole concept is a logical fallacy."- Homouniversalis.

    Simply becuase I could not understand how a ‘reductionist-but-Discordialist’ who was once a ‘nihilist’ would refer to me to Plato of all people, one.
    Talk about Hume in name only, two,
    Discordialism and Neechee in name only three.

    You called my confusion an anti-ism-ism, and with that, a logical fallacy.
    Never once addressing me in that thread, but in a pm where I could not see you.

    That's all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Perfect.

    You have a good machinery running up there in your cranium, but you are too jumpy.
    You see opposition where there is none; or where the opposition is not against you or your beliefs.


    Bleh blah. You are the linguist, the scholar.

    What do you think you are? A self proclaimed architect?
    Are you from a biased utopia that contains integrated cultural and definite etymological archetypes designed by you?
    No, but you wish you were.
    And I should follow your dotty definitions
    No. You should not be jumpy. You horny twat.


    Intellectual is not an equivalent to a dumbass for me.
    And it shouldn't be.


    Being an intellectual is not following an ideology.
    The ideology, however, is placed upon a person dwelling in the molds of it.
    Placed upon - by you.
    Whew. You are willing to assume I have god-status?


    Intellectual is this:
    Of or relating to the intellect.
    Rational rather than emotional.
    Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
    Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
    Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
    Of course.

    But now ask yourself: How are these intellectual activities as defined above pursued in human practice?


    It is not your theoretical or practical decision.
    Of course not. I'm not omnimax.


    So basically what you are doing is defending your stance where the word intellectual means people who contradict the habits of smoking, wear cool glasses and derail topics etc…
    Read again what I said.


    Tough luck sister, but I will use the definitions that are not designed via your fixative mindset.
    So, unless I learn English trough a goddamn medium designed solely for the purpose - nuances, culture, history and everything thought in and coexisting - then you’re right.

    Learn English trough your position?

    But the thrill is that the process of adopting another language borrows the bases from ones own cultural position.
    For example: You appointing circumstances, aesthetics and content to something that I’ve learned to mean its original intent and you expect me to digest that petty sample of your rationalization?
    Hold on. What are you saying? You are not being reasonable here.


    Fuck that. This is a stand.

    I am not defending ignorance either, which would be your next sad basis.
    I trust you see the futileness of forming an argument of defenitions over A FUCKING MODEL THAT RESIDES ONLY IN YOUR VAT OF EXPERIENCES AND CULTURAL VIEWS.


    So, when you expect someone to follow your lead to the pap you’re preparing, you intransigently abandon the already transcendent values residing in mediums sharing common language and varied models when using that language.
    And this is what you’re defending.

    What’s next?
    Bling bling and aight?
    I admit, I have a useless admiration for people who make up an argument out of nothing.


    But to make it simple: One thing is an intellectual who goes around proclaiming he is one. And something completely different is a person engaging in intellectual activities.

    Unfortunately, with humans, and all those ego-factors counting in, a great part of those we consider intelligent breed out into "intelligentsia" – and they are what I described in my previous post.
    Wanting to be an intellectual makes one breed out into intelligentsia. They, however, call themselves "intellectuals".

    Here's an example: I was once at a concert-show on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart – on his life and work. An actor told the story and played pieces, along with the orchestra and soloists. In the break, I met the headmaster and some teachers from my high-school, and it is one of the most elitist high-schools in my country. So we talked a bit, and the headmaster said: "We intellectuals need this." ---We intellectuals need this.--- It made me want to throw up.

    People who resort to their own intellectualism to be defined by it, breed out into high-nosed nobodies.

    Xev had a thread on a vapid intelligent broad at some university who complained about some Neonazis "interfering with her human rights" – I still have the link:
    http://www.hws.edu/news/update/show.asp?id=18339

    "What does this say about a world in which people go to an academic forum dressed as fascists and then violate my personal space on the Web and attack me personally. This is not OK and people need to be aware that we need to change this hateful climate."


    This is an "intellectual" ...

    Einstein was an intellectual – but to call him that in the light of all those other "intellectuals" is an insult to him.


    Yeah, that’s why I’m kissing your ass you schmuck.
    You should kiss ass only literally, never metaphorically.


    Put down that copy of "Nietzsche for pussies" this instant!
    I do not read Nietzsche because of people like you.
    Diminishing imbecile.
    I'm laughing at your failed attempts to humor me.


    By the way.
    What’s this "intellectual is an ism" rollick. Weren’t you just a post ago categorizing intellectuals as individuals sharing irritating features – features that irritate you?
    You know, telling the world they are idiots?

    Don’t you think that you kind of contradict the whole premise of the ‘ism of intelligence’?
    Face it: Going around, parading, marching under the flag of "intellect" is forfeiting intellect.

    Einstein might have said to that concert-show, "Grand, it's jolly music and a terrific actor!" The headmaster of my high-school was only able to say "We intellectuals need this."


    That ism of intellect of yours is like so rock n roll and shit.

    And I thought it was:

    Exercise or application of the intellect.
    Devotion to exercise or development of the intellect.
    Go somewhere where "intellectuals" meet, and you'll see some "exercise and application of the intellect, and devotion to exercise or development of the intellect".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    You see opposition where there is none
    There is always opposition against words, the condescension, the selective resonance of the others' words, the selective responses etc…
    And even if they are not present - the lack of melodic nyances reveal them.
    The more schizoid you are the more you see these specks.

    I’m not naïve enough to expect to receive the same value as the responder appoints him/herself.

    Also: Being different is a FAILURE.

    Therefore every last one of you people are deadbeats when you fail to reply with:
    "Yes massa, of course massa!!"


    Hold on. What are you saying? You are not being reasonable here.
    And what? I’m not being reasonable here?
    Ok, that’s the way you like it.

    This is not being reasonable:
    "Russians should have wiped all of you Slovene fucks out, you make too little sense for living."

    Say I’m not being reasonable to that and I can take it. But do not hide behind that silly line without an explanation.


    But to make it simple: One thing is an intellectual who goes around proclaiming he is one. And something completely different is a person engaging in intellectual activities.
    No one was calling anyone an intellectual - except for you.
    You were defining those who wear cool glasses intellectuals, and by intellectuals you meant morons. HAH! stfu.

    And the headmaster was defining the group, just like you did when you sucked in his words.
    Only difference was that the headmaster used the word 'intelligence' to describe the features residing in intelligence. You used it to define the group as pompous fucks.

    Even if the headmaster were to be a 'holier than thou' three meter tall superman - he still used the word as it derived from its original meaning.
    He merely might not understand the etiquette in complementing with it.
    He enforced the dictionary, if you will.

    Actually, you are the one who had appointed meanings to the mans character when you expected him to posses the characteristics and aptitudes to know better.

    Again. It’s not about the personas included in this scenario, it’s not about the ramifications of your molded archetypes. It’s about you unleashing those transformations that you hate and love at the same time.

    You’re a transformer.
    A car by day, a killing machine by night.
    what what?


    And to call Einstein an intellectual is fine – he was one.
    But you're the one who’s including those other fucks in the bunch - starting to get my point?


    And I’m not humoring you; your cranium might not take it.

    YOU are the condescending bitch here.
    Basically what I am trying to do is showing you how you are one of these headmasters.
    Want me to post that drivel where you did exactly the same thing as the headmaster did?
    At least the headmaster has a sense of pride towards the word, and towards the people touched by the word. You, on the other hand, merely gave up all hope and conceded the word into a void of bullshit.

    You, water, are like a river that is being pissed in.
    Contradictory – by yourself.

    Because, water, I am not denying the misusage of the word.
    I am rather witnessing you misuse the word and at the same time seeing you run around finding others like you so irksome.

    You should bear in mind that you came here to humour with your silly 'intelligence', yet lacking motives.

    And intelligence is not an ism from an individual, personal point of view.
    An autist who creates his own language is an intellectual being - yet a goddamn moron in social, emphatic interractions.
    A contradiction?
    Follow the path of intellect as if you would follow your vegetarian diet?



    You should kiss ass only literally, never metaphorically.
    And you should - concretely - spot sarcasm.


    By the way: Three men ship off to the moon.
    Wife number 1 cries her eyes out.
    Wife number 2 vents her anger.
    And wife number 3 cracks self-confident, securing and canting 'jokes'.

    And I'm the one with a hard on.

    you have a good machinery running up there in your cranium, but you are too jumpy.
    No. You should not be jumpy. You horny twat.
    Of course not. I'm not omnimax.
    I'm laughing at your failed attempts to humor me.
    I admit, I have a useless admiration for people who make up an argument out of nothing.
    Stop soaking the floor, water

    Though, I know I am biased since I dont't know groups of self-proclaimed 'intellectuals'.
    Only the modest kind, hah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Perfect.


    Uh.


    Say I’m not being reasonable to that and I can take it. But do not hide behind that silly line without an explanation.
    Angry little white boy nigga ...

    You do not come here to learn English. Period.


    No one was calling anyone an intellectual - except for you.
    You were defining those who wear cool glasses intellectuals, and by intellectuals you meant morons. HAH! stfu.
    It was HU who brought up intellectuals and the desire to become one. This, I have addressed.


    Again. It’s not about the personas included in this scenario, it’s not about the ramifications of your molded archetypes. It’s about you unleashing those transformations that you hate and love at the same time.

    You’re a transformer.
    A car by day, a killing machine by night.
    what what?
    Ever thought about writing novels?


    And to call Einstein an intellectual is fine – he was one.
    But you're the one who’s including those other fucks in the bunch - starting to get my point?
    No, it wasn't me who included Einstein into that bunch. It is that bunch claiming Einstein to be one of them, and Einstein can't oppose ...


    YOU are the condescending bitch here.
    Basically what I am trying to do is showing you how you are one of these headmasters.
    Whew. Yes, massa, I was so blind, so blind!


    Want me to post that drivel where you did exactly the same thing as the headmaster did?
    At least the headmaster has a sense of pride towards the word, and towards the people touched by the word. You, on the other hand, merely gave up all hope and conceded the word into a void of bullshit.

    You, water, are like a river that is being pissed in.
    Contradictory – by yourself.

    Because, water, I am not denying the misusage of the word.
    I am rather witnessing you misuse the word and at the same time seeing you run around finding others like you so irksome.

    You should bear in mind that you came here to humour with your silly 'intelligence', yet lacking motives.
    You truly make a lot of you-statements.


    And intelligence is not an ism from an individual, personal point of view.
    An autist who creates his own language is an intellectual being - yet a goddamn moron in social, emphatic interractions.
    A contradiction?
    But this is not what the talk is about. Go back to HU's post.


    Though, I know I am biased since I dont't know groups of self-proclaimed 'intellectuals'.
    Only the modest kind, hah.
    Consider yourself lucky then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    Whew. Yes, massa, I was so blind, so blind!


    Good girl.

    There are water melons in the shed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Whoa-ho.

    My, my, my looky looky

    Angry little white boy nigga ...

    You do not come here to learn English. Period.
    Water, whose blood smells of fluffy bunny piss and clothes stink of good manners, said nigga??!!



    Nigga, as in nigger, as in "I'm racist cracker and hate Poles-Jews-Mexicans-not-to-mention-your-fat-mother" too???!!

    Insanities.
    I'd love to see you in Brooklyn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Abraxas,


    Insanities.
    I'd love to see you in Brooklyn.
    I am a high-nosed intellectual prig, a dandy snob, a stuffy wannabe, a puffed-up reckless waster of time, in short, I am what I hate the most. And to my shame, I indulge in it. No vision, no motive or dedication, bored to death in the heaps of fancy knuh-wledge, I, in my immense contempt for Derrida, am no different than he in that I try to be the opposite of what he and the likes represent to me. Shame on me.

    Il sueno de la razon produce monstroes.

    I am water's demon. May God have mercy on my soul, for I am merciless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The tip of your tongue
    Posts
    94
    Add naive.

    But all in all.

    Finally, recognition

    Yes yes, thank you

    *A tear*


    Edit:
    Abtronic
    I'd love to see you in Brooklyn.
    And that is what is your problem.

    Thinking that the word actually means shit outside the ghetto.

    Now excuse me, I'm going to go and eat this ravishing chocolad dream called "The niggers kiss".
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •