|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
The absurdity of exclusive intellectualism |
| as well as big words |
|
|
|
|
 Replies: 58 — Last Post Dec. 8, 2006 11:47am by DaRareBlackNerd
|
|
|
|
|
( PerdixFalling )
Technician
|
    
First, in case anyone believes that this post is not a personal attack, let me assure you that it is. It is a totally unnecessary assault on the inhabitants of this forum. I would, if I were a better person, allow you to continue to wallow in your own pathetic drivel while I quietly mocked you from my pedestal (that is the big metaphorical column rising above your heads). However, I am not a good person, and to illustrate that I feel obliged to inform you that if given the opportunity I would hurt someone dear to you. Seriously, I would hit them. I could probably get away with it too because I’m so tall. Therefore, instead of letting you blissfully revel in your carefully typed diarrhea, I have this to say.
ONE: The people who start topics on this forum (like me) are shitheads. We really are. Where there should be a cranium there is only fecal matter. We claim to be intellectual when, ironically, we’re quite the opposite. Intellectuals (unlike me) are devoted to matters of internal reflection and revelation. An undeniable part of that reflection is the free exchange of ideas. To separate one's self from the masses is the exact opposite of intellectualism. As a matter of fact, the term "intellectual" is first and foremost the members of the masses who have CHOSEN to study thought (teachers, philosophers... etc...). Those who are not free to post here are not CHOOSING not to. Therefore, we are restricting the exchange of ideas, and are forced to share the various noises our defecating necks make for amusement.
TWO: We are elitists. Blatant, pathetic elitists. Why should there be an exclusive area for those with some arbitrary genetic gift of intelligence? Why not make a forum based on an arbitrary genetic gift of beauty? Why not make one based on the size of one's earlobes? The color of one's eyes? Gender? Race? Length of genitalia?
THREE: We have set a minimum number of characters, ironically, under the impression that this somehow proves the worth of a comment. This is intensely stupid. As an example, allow me to demonstrate with one of my favorite words: rofl. Rofl indicates the desire to perform a series of actions that consequently indicate admiration of a person or a described event. One could just as easily say, "I enjoyed your comment to such a ludicrous extent that even now I feel the desire to roll with ecstasy upon my finely cleaned Persian carpet, however, I am at my computer and consequently choose not to."
Finally, I wish only that those who post below me in protest to my words, or contend that what I have written is false, will contract some form of cancer in the near future.
-------
Lungs are going out of style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birdo
Connoisseur
 Ad Free
|
 
To me it seems the intellectual test is kind of a joke, like the high school exit exams. The test is easy enough, in my opinion, that it's hardly "exclusive," and if you can't pass it, then you probably don't have anything very intellectual to say to begin with.
-------
My pokemon bring all the boys to the yard and I'm like, "You wanna trade cards?"
"Damn right! I wanna trade cards! I can beat you, I've got Charizard!"
|
1:51 am on June 1, 2006 | Joined April 2006 | 241 Days Active
Join to learn more about Birdo Alaska, United States | Straight Male | 1793 Posts | 6507 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
chalkboard sonata
Dairy Product Addict
 Patron
|
You've really said nothing which hasn't been raised before. However, I did want to address a couple of things:
 Intellectuals (unlike me) are devoted to matters of internal reflection and revelation. An undeniable part of that reflection is the free exchange of ideas. 
An intellectual is nothing more than one who intellectualises; that is, subscribes to rationality and knowledge over ostensibly baser forms of perceptual analysis (emotion & sensation). The process of "internal reflection and revelation" occurs within that intellectualised sphere; however, there is certainly no onus upon the intellectual to share his epiphany with the outside world. There's no doubt that the free exchange of ideas will generally prove beneficial to the sum total of a person's knowledge, but such exchange is by no means an intrinsic part of intellectualism.
To separate one's self from the masses is the exact opposite of intellectualism.
I would be inclined to disagree. It's a lot easier to be brilliant when you don't have to worry about banalities like cooking and taking out the laundry.
As a matter of fact, the term "intellectual" is first and foremost the members of the masses who have CHOSEN to study thought (teachers, philosophers... etc...).
An intellectual is not one who studies the concepts of processes and concepts of thought. An intellectual is one who uses rational thought as a primary tool.
-------
Fucking for fear of not wanting to fear again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
( PerdixFalling )
Technician
|
An intellectual is nothing more than one who intellectualises; that is, subscribes to rationality and knowledge over ostensibly baser forms of perceptual analysis (emotion & sensation).
Go wiki intellectuals Chalkboard, take a break from fucking echidnas and just do it. Did you see your pathetic, entirely extemporous definition of Intellectualism anywhere on there?No? Damn. Well, fuck that shit, you must be right. Thus, an intellectual is one who intellectualizes. This information is surprising, but fortunate, because it makes my point MUCH more valid.
If an intellectual is anyone that intellectualizes then we are ALL intellectuals, and the entrance test is that much more preposterous. Everyone makes decisions in their lives that are not based on emotion you jackass. I mean, come on... "One that intellectualises???" You douche. And while it's true that intellectuals do not have to share with the outside world, that's not at all what I was saying. In actual isolation from the free exchange of ideas you wouldn't know what intellectualism is, and certainly wouldn't be able to pass the ridiculous entrance test.
Wouldn't your time be better spent abusing Aborigines you Australian bastard?
(Edited by PerdixFalling at 11:20 am on June 1, 2006)
-------
Lungs are going out of style.
|
|
|
|
|
lunasantin
Soothsayer
Patron
|
Go wiki intellectuals Chalkboard, take a break from fucking echidnas and just do it. Did you see your pathetic, entirely extemporous definition of Intellectualism anywhere on there?No? Damn.
Funny thing, if you actually read the article, it doesn't say anything to support your point. In fact, Chalkboard's definition does show up there; it's in the very first line, and again later in the article, "Strictly a doctrine about the possibility of deriving knowledge from reason alone, intellectualism can stand for a general approach emphasising the importance of learning and logical thinking." Similarly, if we look up "intellectualism" at dictionary.com, they give us Chalkboard's definition. And so does Wiktionary, as long as we're on the subject of Wikis.
Everyone makes decisions in their lives that are not based on emotion you jackass.
How terribly telling -- that was quite the emotional statement.
In actual isolation from the free exchange of ideas you wouldn't know what intellectualism is, and certainly wouldn't be able to pass the ridiculous entrance test.
There's a difference between having a single private room in your giant house, and spending your entire life in that room. We have a private room, but we spend the majority of our time outside of it.
-------
Make love, not traffic.
|
|
|
( PerdixFalling )
Technician
|
Ah Lunasantin, you shithead, I thought you weren't going to give me the attention I so desperately crave. I knew I wouldn't like you the moment I saw the compromising young man in your avatar throwing out that ancient Hindu symbol for samsara. And while I provided a much more logical and reasonable argument for the abolishment of this forum's isolation via Chalkboard's statement, let me assure you that you are wrong (which shouldn't surprise anyone, seeing as you're an insufferable dumbass). Wikipedia doesn't support Chalkboard, because "Strictly a doctrine about the possibility of deriving knowledge from reason alone, intellectualism can stand for a general approach emphasizing the importance of learning and logical thinking" doesn't mean "An intellectual is nothing more than one who intellectualises; that is, subscribes to rationality and knowledge over ostensibly baser forms of perceptual analysis (emotion & sensation)," probably because of all the different words.
However, when the Wikipedia says, “Secondly, and here largely arising from Marxism, 'intellectuals' as that recognisable occupational class consisting of lecturers, teachers, lawyers, journalists, and suchlike." Looks strikingly similar to my words, "the term "intellectual" is first and foremost the members of the masses who have CHOSEN to study thought (teachers, philosophers... etc...)." I can see where you'd get confused though, not because what I wrote was complicated, but definitely because you're an idiot.
I don't really understand your point about me being emotional though (which I assert I was not, and was merely stating the fact that Chalkboard is a pretentious prick who I would I like to see disemboweled). Were you asserting that I wasn't an intellectual because I had emotions or that because I have emotions (which I still assert I do not) that not everyone is an intellectual? Neither of those points are in any way relevant or make sense, so I assume that you have somehow disguised your meaning so effectively that I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Which is fine with me really, because I’d enjoy it if you didn't talk at all.
I do, however, feel obligated to counter the one thing you said that would come close to a valid point. The dictionary does agree with that kangaroo muncher's apparently unimagined definition of an intellectual. Besides for the fact that this makes my point about everyone being an intellectual that much more valid, I will admit that I made a possible misinterpretation. That misinterpretation would be that this forum was designed for those who fall under the definition of Intellectuals as a class, and not the definition that says that anyone who has ever made a decision not based on emotion. If I did make that misinterpretation, then I apologize, but I must insist that in addition to the test being abolished, dolphin access must be provided, after all, they've been known to make decisions based on more than just emotion.
-------
Lungs are going out of style.
|
|
|
Patronizing Bastard
Dairy Product Addict
|
Quote: from Just another kid at 3:57 am on June 1, 2006
Intelligence contributes to discussion.
Since when did intelligence ever contribute anything?
While I do not know of any situations where intelligence has contributed anything, I do know of people with intelligence contributing.
|
|
|
lunasantin
Soothsayer
Patron
|
Ah Lunasantin, you shithead, I thought you weren't going to give me the attention I so desperately crave.
You're forgetting an important factor: you're at least twice as entertaining as some of the other threads I could be responding to. That's really the only reason you're getting replies.
I knew I wouldn't like you the moment I saw the compromising young man in your avatar throwing out that ancient Hindu symbol for samsara.
Oh, you poor thing, you. That's a misinterpretation and you know it, so I won't even bother countering beyond this.
And while I provided a much more logical and reasonable argument for the abolishment of this forum's isolation via Chalkboard's statement, let me assure you that you are wrong...
Useless semantics which prove nothing.
(which shouldn't surprise anyone, seeing as you're an insufferable dumbass).
Those ad hominem attacks are sure to scare me off, so keep them coming! The more you call somebody stupid, the truer it gets, after all.
Wikipedia doesn't support Chalkboard, because "Strictly a doctrine about the possibility of deriving knowledge from reason alone, intellectualism can stand for a general approach emphasizing the importance of learning and logical thinking" doesn't mean "An intellectual is nothing more than one who intellectualises; that is, subscribes to rationality and knowledge over ostensibly baser forms of perceptual analysis (emotion & sensation)," probably because of all the different words.
I'd argue that those are pretty much equivalent statements. What is rationality, other than the process of deriving knowledge from reason?
However, when the Wikipedia says, “Secondly, and here largely arising from Marxism, 'intellectuals' as that recognisable occupational class consisting of lecturers, teachers, lawyers, journalists, and suchlike." Looks strikingly similar to my words, "the term "intellectual" is first and foremost the members of the masses who have CHOSEN to study thought (teachers, philosophers... etc...)." I can see where you'd get confused though, not because what I wrote was complicated, but definitely because you're an idiot.
That assumes that teachers, lecturers, and lawyers stand for the free exchange of information -- while that may often be the case, it's hardly a prerequisite of joining any of those groups, and I'm sure there are plenty of them who'd disagree with you. At best, you've established that the definition of intellectualism is disputed, and therefore a moot point overall.
I can see where you'd get confused though, not because what I wrote was complicated, but definitely because you're an idiot.
That wasn't even exciting. Please find better insults.
I don't really understand your point about me being emotional though (which I assert I was not, and was merely stating the fact that Chalkboard is a pretentious prick who I would I like to see disemboweled). Were you asserting that I wasn't an intellectual because I had emotions or that because I have emotions (which I still assert I do not) that not everyone is an intellectual? Neither of those points are in any way relevant or make sense, so I assume that you have somehow disguised your meaning so effectively that I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Which is fine with me really, because I’d enjoy it if you didn't talk at all.
I'll let you keep working on that one.
I do, however, feel obligated to counter the one thing you said that would come close to a valid point. The dictionary does agree with that kangaroo muncher's apparently unimagined definition of an intellectual.
A retreat? How unlike you.
Besides for the fact that this makes my point about everyone being an intellectual that much more valid...
Does it? One who makes one intellectual decision doesn't necessarily always intellectualize; one who makes a majority of them doesn't necessarily do so, either -- it's more a question of proportions. Merely thinking does not qualify one as an intellectual, there's a matter of how often and how rationally.
If I did make that misinterpretation, then I apologize, but I must insist that in addition to the test being abolished, dolphin access must be provided, after all, they've been known to make decisions based on more than just emotion.
If a dolphin happens to pass the test, I suppose I wouldn't mind chatting with them. You're still missing the real point of this forum. It's not so much about intellectualism -- that's just an arbitrary name for the place. It's more about this, or even this.
-------
Make love, not traffic.
|
|
|
( PerdixFalling )
Technician
|
This line of conversation is quickly dying, I suspect because I have shamed you all. But because you clearly spent a decent amount of your time attempting valiantly, but unsuccessfully to prove me wrong, I will say this.
In response to "That wasn't even exciting. Please find better insults." My insults are exquisite and you know it. I told a man earlier today to stop fucking echidnas, how many other people can say that?
In response to "Does it? One who makes one intellectual decision doesn't necessarily always intellectualize; one who makes a majority of them doesn't necessarily do so, either -- it's more a question of proportions. Merely thinking does not qualify one as an intellectual, there's a matter of how often and how rationally." You've been missing my point all along, which I suspected ever since I realized that debating you is easier than taking candy from a dead baby who is covered in unwrapped jolly ranchers that could potentially stick to the soles of one's shoes. The definition that Chalky provided, "An intellectual is nothing more than one who intellectualizes" doesn't say, "An intellectual is nothing more than one who ONLY intellectualizes" or even, "An intellectual is nothing more than one who ROUTINELY intellectualizes." Therefore, anyone who has ever intellectualized would be an intellectual. And as we have established, intellectualizing is simply making rational choices, making everyone an intellectual and the entrance test completely ridiculous, even for Flipper.
-------
Lungs are going out of style.
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
380 users online 
157966 members 
You have 1 new message.
