---

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."

---

No, you're still being pretty stupid. Take politics, for example -- a liberal could be described as "one who makes liberal decisions," but any person who makes one liberal decision is not necessarily a liberal. Proportion is important.

You still haven't addressed the real point of the forum. It's about intelligent discussion, and in this case the filter is a simple test. The name is arbitrary.

-------
Make love, not traffic.

---

(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).

---

---

Quote: from PerdixFalling at 8:33 am on June 2, 2006

---

(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).

---

Bahahahaha.

---

Looks like you have a new fan, chalkboard sonata. Isn't that precious?

-------
Cruisin' down the street in my six-four;
Jockin' the bitches, slappin the hoes.

---

 
   And DaRare, i refuse to have my actions commented on by the kind of shamless prick who promotes himself based on his race.

---

My name is based on the suppose 'anti-intellectualism' of 'black(hip-hop)culture'.

-------
Cruisin' down the street in my six-four;
Jockin' the bitches, slappin the hoes.

---

A liberal could also be defined as someone who belongs to a liberal party, which is strikingly similar to my definition of an intellectual as someone who belongs to the intellectual class. Thus, you made a rather strong point in favor of my original statement.

---

"Take politics, for example -- a liberal could be described as 'one who makes liberal decisions,' but any person who makes one liberal decision is not necessarily a liberal. Proportion is important," does not in any way, shape, or form comment on your alternative definition, probably because of all the different words. If you can explain how what I said was relevant to or in support of your point, I might buy it.

If we're discussing "class," you still lose -- the only "class" to post on this forum is the class of people able to pass a simple test.

And beyond all that, you still haven't responded to the real purpose of the forum, which I've mentioned enough times for you to find it. Your consistent lack of any sort of rebuttal on that point implies an inability to give one.

Anyway, unless you come up with something worth responding to, I'm bored with you.

-------
Make love, not traffic.

---

Really sounds like someone is jealous of the concept of the Philosopher King presented to us by Aristotle back in the day.  Which reminds me that I need to re-read that book for my class.

---

*COUGH* PLATO *COUGH
Which I would assume you do know. Right? Or are you an extremely sad shithead?

(Edited by Patronizing Bastard at 4:06 pm on June 2, 2006)

(Edited by PerdixFalling at 4:17 pm on June 2, 2006)

-------
Lungs are going out of style.

---

If we're discussing "class," you still lose -- the only "class" to post on this forum is the class of people able to pass a simple test.  

---

---

And beyond all that, you still haven't responded to the real purpose of the forum, which I've mentioned enough times for you to find it. Your consistent lack of any sort of rebuttal on that point implies an inability to give one.  

---

Perhaps my genius friend, he has not responded to said point because it is rather non-topical to the contentions stated at the beginning of the thread.

(Edited by Patronizing Bastard at 4:28 pm on June 2, 2006)

---

"Take politics, for example -- a liberal could be described as 'one who makes liberal decisions,' but any person who makes one liberal decision is not necessarily a liberal. Proportion is important," does not in any way, shape, or form comment on your alternative definition, probably because of all the different words. If you can explain how what I said was relevant to or in support of your point, I might buy it.

---

  I assume you're referring to my alternative definition of "liberal" here, because if you don't see the similarities between the two alternative definitions, then I can understand why you're bored, because your terrifying stupidity has made it impossible to comprehend the abuse I’ve rationed out to your pathetic counterpoints. I am, however, going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and simply believe that you falsely inferred I’d somehow derived my definition of liberal from yours. I did not. Go to one of those dictionary sites you like so much... wiktionary.com or dictionary.com, and look up "liberal".

  I really have no idea what you've been saying is the "true purpose" of this forum, but I probably covered it in my opening statement. You know the long thing where I talk about what's wrong with people like you? I probably covered it there. But, on the off chance that it wasn't the reason why I started this topic. Humor me. Tell it to me so I can shoot it down (like everything else you've said).

  And let me assure you, I don't want you to post anymore. You make invalid claims, don't understand my points, and hate Hindus. If I’m boring you then go. Actually, scratch that, just go. Please.


-------
Lungs are going out of style.

---

You are a moron. AGAIN you prove you do not understand the arguments presented in the first post.

---

That's funny, because I wasn't responding to the first post, there. If my misunderstanding is so obvious, you shouldn't have any problem pointing it out specifically, or explaining it -- or is that just a pointless ad hominem attack, on your part?

---

Perhaps my genius friend, he has not responded to said point because it is rather non-topical to the contentions stated at the beginning of the thread.

---

If something like the purpose of the Intellectual Forum isn't relevant to the discussion, then this whole thread isn't relevant to the Intellectual Forum -- pick your poison.

(Edited by lunasantin at 1:14 am on June 3, 2006)

-------
Make love, not traffic.

---

  That doesn't mean you're not making a comment that generalizes and demeans your race while you simultaneously indicate that you are somehow better than others.

---

In what way does the comment generalize and demean black people? Jokes are joke, and regardless of how you feel about them they're just that-jokes, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

If I'm making a comment, it's on the sub-culture that so many people have chosen to find synonymous with 'black'.  

So which part indicates that I'm better? Is it the 'da', 'rare'(which is completely neutral, rare doesn't necessarily equate to value, but occurrence) 'black' or 'nerd'(which is traditionally an insult)?

---

And I don't know what hip-hop you listen to, but nothing about Aes Rock, Technique, Sweatshop U, Jean Grae, Can Ox and a host of other hip-hop artists strikes me as anti-intellectual.

---

First of all, I said "supposed"....

Well at least you have some taste in hip-hop, I like Immortal Technique and a few of those other artist as well. You'll also notice that those artist are far from mainstream artist. The fact that you assume that I listen to hip-hop though, says something though, doesn't it?

(Edited by DaRareBlackNerd at 3:33 am on June 3, 2006)

-------
Cruisin' down the street in my six-four;
Jockin' the bitches, slappin the hoes.

---

That's funny, because I wasn't responding to the first post, there.  

---

---

If my misunderstanding is so obvious, you shouldn't have any problem pointing it out specifically, or explaining it -- or is that just a pointless ad hominem attack, on your part?  

---

---

If something like the purpose of the Intellectual Forum isn't relevant to the discussion, then this whole thread isn't relevant to the Intellectual Forum -- pick your poison.  

---

(Edited by Patronizing Bastard at 12:28 pm on June 3, 2006)