Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandajuice
Which discussion? All I see are 3 different people talking to themselves about 3 different topics and my having to defend myself when I attempted to add my input.
So please, let me know what topic you wish me to elaborate on and I shall.
|
I can't even remember, I'm too baffled by your last bit of "input".
Hang on, let me
try to begin to dissect the logic here. You make the point that I am dumber than you are, and I sarcastically counterpoint that you aren't exactly an intellectual, using an example of something that I am interested in, and that I know there is a zero percent chance of you knowing about, let alone being interested in.
This is a risk, because if you ARE interested in Voltaire's overall philosophy in Candide, you'll soon make me look like an idiot. However, your response, as predicted, is that you are not interested in the subject.
In fact, interest in Voltaire is a handicap. At first, it appears that you might be making the point that I am unoriginal for being willing to partake in a debate that has been going for centuries. Later, however, in a response to Seth, it becomes apparent that the mere mention of Voltaire is what you are irritated by, which
could be due to the fact that you're talking out of your ass and are intimidated by a subject that you know fuck-all about, but that's just conjecture.
To justify your interesting position that you are smarter than people who are knowledgeable about Voltaire merely for the fact that you are not, you take up the stance that you come up with what we might call "original content", and we do not. Seth infers once again that you are an idiot and that your point is stupid, far more eloquently than I have at this point.
You return fire by claiming that it's "a good thing [you're] not trying to shatter the Earth with [your] philisophical views then [you] guess." You are justified in not caring about Voltaire because you are uninterested in having new and compelling ideas, therefore definitively proving that you are a genius.
You finish with the point that it's "more interesting to have a discussion with someone who isn't constantly saying "Voltaire said in 1789...", inferring that a single offhanded mention of Voltaire is pretentious and that you are more interested in having a conversation with someone who can prove their intelligence and expand yours by talking about "new" things which, since they do not talk about any previously explored ideas, have little to do with history, literature, or science. Instead, this person must come up with new and compelling ideas of their own, which you have already stated that you personally are uninterested in having, you leech.
Then you finish with the inference that knowing about Voltaire is a liability in the job market.
Seeing as how the conversation will have hurtled forward by this point, and unraveling your backwards, monkey brain so far has proven that it is not worth the effort, I'm just going to continue taunting you for being a retard from now on.