This is fun, please don't stop now.
Boy, you're a slippery little fucker, aren't you?
I'm actually kind of big, and yes, when wet I do tend to slide around.
So tell me, do you always duck the issue as soon as your bullshit intellectuality is challenged?
Based on that assumption, it would seem prudent. Spear catching has never really caught on as an international sport.
I never said that a rock had no purpose. The original poster, mingTmerciless (remember, the guy you said was imponderably sad because he's got a taste for liquor?), said that.
Yes, he did, then he followed it up with the obvious conclusion that "neither do you." That's the point I'm arguing. Which, BTW, he allowed for in his own words with "You can either make something interesting out of it...".
I said you were an idiot for having had the nerve to tell him his answer was not only wrong, but wasn't even an option.
Actually, it is an option, just a poor one, IMVHO (happy now?). Since it quite simply follows that then the point to life becomes something along the lines of Personally, I've decided to let everything slowly slide into oblivion. Alcohol and narcotics are great for that. You might choose differently. And since that didn't make sense to me, I asked him, why he had made that choice. Check the thread, that's the part where you jump in screaming profanities. Now, back to that rock.
(a) design an empirical experiment to measure "purpose".
Which is rather impossible to do through text, so I went with some simple mind games. Giving various examples how outside action and purpose are combined. I've challenged you now three times to come up with another way to define the word (which at m-w.com #2 is "an action in course of execution"). This is where the, uh, stuff comes in, and basically I'm saying that because all matter moves through time, this movement is enough to give it purpose, even if that purpose is just to be. The only way something could have no purpose is to be nothing, and since we start with a rock, we have a reason to conclude purpose.
[scanning for next question amid senseless namecalling...]
(can you spell "antidisestablishmentarianism"?)
Let's see. A-N-T-I-D-E, arrg!! Nope, sorry.
(a lot like vomiting, yes?)
Yes, quite. Thanks for helping me clean some of it up.
"If we were to study the rock scientifically, it's fairly likely we'd find no quantitative change."
Maybe you should expand on that "scientifically". Because unless you do it really fast, the rock has moved through time (no caps, just for you). And if you did it that fast, you wouldn't find a rock.
What's more, you go on to summon a god you call "Quantum Theory" (without ever having seen his face, no less!)
See my previous comment. Wow, it's funny, but on this page, it seems to say that the concept I was just using is based on "the most fundamental equation of quantum mechanics."
Very good, dear boy, it was an egotistical child named Wah.
Actually, the name's Roy. My nick is just a possible pronounciation based on latitude.
But then again, how often does someone let me basically call them a douchebag, a pompous ass, and a blowhard for days on end and keep laughing right along with me the whole time?
Because it's friggin' hilarious? Actually, you are helping me more than you probably want to, you can check my most recent diary entry for why that may be.
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? |