• * LAMC Relaunched *

Forum >> General Chat >> Totty =)

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169	08 May 2010 07:02am
	waits for darwin to make a dictionary comeback

[=V=] Machete [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 173	08 May 2010 07:07am
	Cliffnotes?

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169

08 May 2010 07:08am

here are the cliffnotes I am writing this letter rather reluctantly. I do not wish to begin an incendiary debate about Mr. Darwin's tracts. However, Darwin has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. Let's start with my claim that Darwin maintains that the sky is falling. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that with him so forcefully destroying our moral fiber, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must fight for our freedom of speech. I frequently wish to tell Darwin that of particular interest to me is the way that he continuously denies that everyone knows of the lust and driving passion that has caused this problem. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Forgive me for boring you with all the gory details, but neocolonialism doesn't work. So why does Darwin cling to it? The answer is a bit of a taboo subject, but that won't stop me from telling you. You see, if it turns out that there's no way to prevent Darwin from turning bourgeoisie loose against us good citizens then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to subject Darwin's adages to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant and accept the fact that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of racism, and there are those who are not. Darwin is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why he expects people to bow and scrape before him. For proof of this fact I must point out that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which lousy yahoos like Darwin are utterly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of despotism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? The answer is not obvious because Darwin would have us believe that you and I are morally inferior to bleeding-heart layabouts of one sort or another. Not surprisingly, his evidence for that completely dysfunctional claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, he has a checkered track record for accuracy. I claim it would be more accurate for Darwin to say that his bestial, adversarial pranks have caused what I call indelicate fanatics to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, forcing me to go into hiding. Darwin is two-faced, contemptuous, choleric, amateurish, morally repugnant, and unstable. Need I go on? His epithets are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to tell you things that Darwin doesn't want you to know. The only way to destroy Darwin's Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that I'd advise him to stop being so egocentric. More than that, once one begins thinking about free speech, about anti-democratic, crude worrywarts who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own moonstruck beliefs, one realizes that he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (he is cunctipotent), distortions (ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him), and misplaced idealism (he never engages in clueless, conniving, or self-righteous politics). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "pancreaticoduodenostomy". People sometimes ask me why I seem incapable of saying anything nice about Darwin. I'd like to—really, I would. The problem is, I can't think of anything nice to say. I guess that's not surprising when you consider that Darwin's hastily mounted campaigns reek of statism. I use the word "reek" because we must show Darwin that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show him that we can kick butt and take names. Maybe then Darwin will realize that I've managed to come up with a way in which his essays could be made useful. Darwin's essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that Darwin's cronies favor a lifestyle that is as slaphappy as Darwin's op-ed pieces. End of story. Actually, I should add that he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that things have never been better. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Darwin's acolytes believe that Darwin is as innocent as a newborn lamb. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Darwin. Lest I forget to mention this later, I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Darwin's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many inerudite yobbos realize that if cameralism were an Olympic sport, Darwin would clinch the gold medal. If I had to choose the most unreasonable specimen from his welter of pugnacious gabble, it would have to be his claim that vainglorious New Age warlords aren't ever execrable. If Darwin had done his homework, he'd know that writing instructors seeking to introduce the concept of animalism into their curricula could hardly do better than to use his obloquies as an example. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that Darwin managed to convince a bunch of the most shameless demoniacs you'll ever see to help him cause headlong subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. What was the quid pro quo there? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: He is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Darwin used to be a major proponent of defeatism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind antipluralism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Rest assured, many imperious sewer rats are taken in by his attestation that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. In this case, one cannot help but recall that I have absolutely no idea why Darwin makes such a big fuss over fogyism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I have begged Darwin's habitués to step forth and make Darwin pay for his crimes against humanity. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Darwin might retaliate? Before you answer, let me point out that Darwin wants nothing less than to do away with intellectual honesty. His mercenaries then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with snarky warmongers who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that uncongenial lie-virtuosi commonly succumb to Darwin's distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in mentioning a bit about nasty, odious politicasters such as Darwin. Darwin says that he does the things he does "for the children". Such verbal gems teach us that we've tolerated Darwin's querulous invectives long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to extirpate commercialism root, trunk, and branch. It's time to shout to the world that some day, in the far, far future, he will realize that the first casualty of his values is justice. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how if I seem a bit drossy, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Darwin on his own level. If Darwin would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to maintain social tranquillity. He appears committed to the proposition that his views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while other people's positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological, and unworthy of serious consideration. If you were to get a second opinion from someone who's not a member of his cabal, however, he'd of course tell you that at no time in the past did squalid-to-the-core curmudgeons shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that Darwin's true goal is to usher in the beginning of a jealous new era of officialism. All the statements that his underlings make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to take the lemons that Darwin is handing us and make lemonade. Darwin and his hatchet men are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in causing riots in the streets. Don't join that terrorist organization; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that he had the same intellectual honesty. I assert that the portrayal of deadheads in our culture is partially responsible for Darwin's tirades. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet indisputably argumentative, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the despicable consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone. In spite of all Darwin has done, I must admit I really like the guy. No, just kidding. The truth is that Darwin's histrionics are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that this is typical of the kind of noise Mr. Darwin enjoys making, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument in my next letter.

Distort Bunny [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 3	08 May 2010 07:09am
	No.

FR0G [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 0	08 May 2010 07:10am
	When did I claim the sky is falling? Every argument you present is based on a straw man. Please, try again.

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169	08 May 2010 07:11am
	wow u read fast

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169	08 May 2010 07:14am
	Quote by Darwin: When did I claim the sky is falling? Every argument you present is based on a straw man. Please, try again. u want me to try again... Really? coz i will.

Nis [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 31	08 May 2010 07:14am
	Quote by Aizen: wow u read fast 2 minutes give or take to read all that ! ! !

FR0G [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 0	08 May 2010 07:14am
	You keep posting drawn out arguments based on a single false premise. All I have to do is refute that single premise and your entire proposition no longer stands up to criticism.

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169	08 May 2010 07:17am
	really? u can't beat me with high school dictionary tactics

[Γ] Waluigi [inactive] Post Count: 1 Respect: 174	08 May 2010 07:18am
	wow that broke my glasses trying to read all that. good thing i have microsoft sam to read for me.

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169	08 May 2010 07:19am

FR0G [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 0	08 May 2010 07:20am
	Seeing as you can't even accurately represent my stances, I don't have to do any "beating." You've failed yourself.

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169

08 May 2010 07:22am

Doesn't anyone get the point? It doesn't matter for squat that Darwin has no concern for the common good. What's far more relevant is that Darwin lives and breathes revisionism. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Darwin is extremely headstrong. In fact, my Headstrong-O-Meter confirms that most people react to Darwin's self-pitying litanies as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, I can't follow Darwin's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that his ignominious-to-the-core, froward adherents like to shout, "Let's replace Robert's Rules of Order with 'facilitated consensus building' at all important meetings. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!" But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll inject Darwin's lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Everything I've written in this letter amounts to this: Darwin and his insidious effusions should be shunned.

FR0G [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 0	08 May 2010 07:26am
	You keep trying to post what you believe to be my opinion, and you continue to be incorrect. You were just arguing in favor of free speech earlier, and now you're saying I should be shunned because my opinion scares you? Idiocy and hypocrisy wrapped up in a blanket of insanity = you.

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169

08 May 2010 07:29am

This letter is not a debate contest in which I convince you to agree with me or vice versa. This letter is concerned only with establishing the truth about Mr. Darwin. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although he can't fool me. I've met quixotic wimps before so I know that I try never to argue with Darwin because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. Sorry for babbling so much, but I call upon the entire free world to put the kibosh on Mr. Darwin's lamentations.

FR0G [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 0	08 May 2010 07:36am
	I study logic and philosophy, and they're both my academic strong points. I think I'm more than "susceptible" to reason. Your reasoning is based on logical fallacies.

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169

08 May 2010 07:37am

After reading this letter, you will never again be able to trust Mr. Darwin and you will see with crystal clarity the way that it frustrates him that he can't shut me up. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that his strictures are indistinguishable from the ones he condemns. You may be surprised to learn that I was once like him. I, too, wanted to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. It interfered with my judgment, my reasoning, and my ability to cast a gimlet eye on his barbs. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Mr. Darwin's mentality, though, then study the details of his smear tactics. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that my observations are perhaps unique.

Crack Head [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 0	08 May 2010 07:57am
	Anyone sell rocks?

Teh Ollie [inactive] Post Count: 0 Respect: 169	08 May 2010 07:58am
	lmfao, hey bro sup