(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ You know, the hardest part of being an intellectual in today's climate is that nobody pays attention to my idiotic suggestions.

( ・-・) Those pills expand your consciousness, let's you explore your inner space. They make you a Nobel price winner.

( ・-・) And I would've totally stolen all of Grandpa's valuables before he woke up.

( ´ω`) My valuables? You mean all the beer bottles I've racked up and pissed in when I was too lazy to go to the bathroom?

( ´ω`) Or ... uh, what, Junior? He's of no value to me, you can take him away, I don't care.

sage

( ・-・) I have some sage pills if you want.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ >>154, your main point seems to be that one may not respond to this thread unless one ranks DH6 on that scale. However, I am posting in this thread, and you are a fag. QED.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ I post on /g/ to show off my philosophical technical knowledge.

>>155
Your main point seems to be that by virtue of >>154's pompous, flawed method of belittling all foregoing posters, you have contradicted his post entirely. However, this is not his thread, as was made clear from the original statement. Therefore your argument is null and void. Q(uantum)E(electrically)D(ispwned).

>>157
(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ And you forgot (or never knew) to prefix your post with an intellectual holding a cigarette, one whom is most likely seated in a comfortable chair lined with satin. This means you are not a true intellectual. Quot Erat Demonstratum.

>>158

>Quot

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾

>>159
your a faget

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ I beg to differ, this "a faget" is no possession of mine. Are you certain that you did not misplace it?

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ At least we know why aliens aren't attacking.. After they check the checkbox saying 'Self-exctinction in progress, wait it out.' Take notes.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ im a retard

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ Gosh darn it, I appear to have soiled myself.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ Sorry, I shouldn't have expected you to know that objective reality is limited to observable phenomena.

( ・-・) It was the pits, you say?

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ Your sentence doesn't work if the absolute value of the amount of pits is superior to one, which your use of the plural form indicates.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ But Derrida did once say that linear progressive thought was undermining to the true nature of existence, which manifests as eternally disparate memes and elements of the senses and experience.

Therefore application of sentence structure may be subverted in the name of loosening the tethers that marr expression.

　　、
（　,_ﾉ` )y━･~~~ The problem with you, boy, is that you don't smoke Cubans like a proper capitalist.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ I don't smoke Cubans, I smoke fools like >>171 on the basketball court.

( ・ω・) But you just responded!

( ・ω・) What do I win?

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ Floccinaucinihilipilification

( ・ω・)っ-̾ Am i cool now?

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ The spectacle is hypersensitive to its own needs. This is something of an understatement ― its means and its ends are one and the same. But its physical diction over men, lonely crowds ruled and united solely by their own economy, allows it to shift its locus and blur its tracks so that any analysis of its history becomes discredited by the present. When labour is reorganised to accomodate for automation, the commodity produced is both immaterial and fundamental to the spectacle, a contradiction which reflects its nature as having its own non-realisation as the only permissable goal. In colonised territories, hyperdeveloped societies at the periphery of spectacular absolution distort the native population to the point that every continued aspect of their unintegrated existence becomes a commodity, along with each negation in turn. This produces unique markets, accompanied by their typical dialogues, which, as well as buttressing the reigning order ― as do all other commodities ― can become exports to serve any needs of the spectacle across the planet. Whether these needs ― the drive for “homeland security,” for example ― arose because of the repercussions of commodifying colonisation or not is impossible to distinguish, as our orders are perpetually articulated a step ahead of our awareness.

( ・ω・) what?

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ The freedoms and transmissions of open dialogue are a testament to a society that holds if at least it’s own founded beliefs sacred. The actual methods of political interchange between politicians, lobbyists, and especially the public, are demeaning to the system, and the reliance on psychological manipulation and subversion and not the open deliberation of ideas is jawdropping. In a system that has been so bureaucratized that it has lost complete relevance to its intended purpose, you have to wonder when it will ever change to represent more than pushing capitol and arrogance. In what you can read in history books, by no means has the US democracy been errorless, but it’s easy to see that in relation to the previous eras of the country where it continued to evolve in a manner that reflected the ideas of the day and intentions, this one is perversely manipulated by an absolute undermining of the system that was established to keep it fair and intelligible. Opening the ability to “wire-spy” on anyone does not seem like a step backwards, but a step in a different direction of progression towards a much less democratic state. I agree that it is a failure on the part of the democratic representation to sell their liberty for a chance of security. Perhaps the own freedoms of democracy are inherently subject to the exploitation of itself.

( ・ω・) I don't understand, please elaborate.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ While this may discrdedt my arguement, I draw my conclusions from the universe of Star Trek. Hear me out. In the Star Trek universe, human beings no longer work for the pursuit of money or material gains. This shift in attachment to physical objects stemmed from the invention of the replicator and the elimination of the need to work to provide sustinence. Once the basic needs of the population was met, society shifted. Now, take that point, that changes in attitudes towards money and accumulation of wealth can only change when the means of acquiring that wealth changes. No longer were people defined by what they did or what they had, but by who they were. When no one was starving and everyone had shelter and clothing readily available to them, not to mention that any luxury items were a click away, the world was a better place. Now lets assume we extend that model to our own universe. If the government places itself in a position where it provides all the necessities of life to its population, regardless of social class or wealth, then materialism diminsihes. People are happier and more content with themselves when they know that they are not being forced into an unhappy situation so they can simply survive. No one should have to be put into a situation like that. Once the government starts to provide universal health care, reduce or eliminate rent in many developing communities, and increase funding and access to food re-distribution programs then the general population will become happier and move more towards a society that would accept socialist rule. Basically, we can’t change the way people act without first changing the conditions they are in.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ The way shown how we come by any knowledge, sufficient to prove it not innate. It is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the understanding certain innate principles; some primary notions, koinai ennoiai, characters, as it were stamped upon the mind of man; which the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it. It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition, if I should only show (as I hope I shall in the following parts of this Discourse) how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions; and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or principles. For I imagine any one will easily grant that it would be impertinent to suppose the ideas of colours innate in a creature to whom God hath given sight, and a power to receive them by the eyes from external objects: and no less unreasonable would it be to attribute several truths to the impressions of nature, and innate characters, when we may observe in ourselves faculties fit to attain as easy and certain knowledge of them as if they were originally imprinted on the mind.

( ・ω・)っ-̾ I need to thing about it.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ The climate of Europe is an aberration, really. For the most part, it has an extremely large spread for a temperate climate. In other words, it is place that suspiciously seems like it was designed by a higher power to be a place white people would find comfortable.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ I've decided I should no longer be sharing precious, precious facts and truths with the unwashed filth who could never seek out such treasures of there own accord. The disgusting way in which they absorb and regurgitate it without really learning offends me. A gem of wisdom passed through many unworthy hands looses all value. Knowledge is a thing to be horded.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ My box a day cigar habit has no bearing on the validity or soundness of deductive reasonings, rather it is merely on a small subset of truths that it may have effect.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ As I age, I find I have more and more difficulty remembering which DQN posts are mine. Thankfully, I have come up with an infallible litmus test: My posts are the well-constructed, witty and/or insightful ones.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ If your meta-problem seems unsolvable, consider that you may have a meta-meta-problem.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ Life is social construct.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ The problem with every metatheory -- that is, theories, which answer how and what we can know -- is that they somehow must account for themselves, must justify their own applicability and validity. If they succeed so, they are tautological, and if they fail, they are condtradictory, therefore self-defeating in this way or another.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ It appears I am in fact allergic to my new favourite blend of pipe tobacco. Clearly, this is unacceptable.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ What most Westerners fail to realize about "Gangnam Style" is that it is a thinly veiled satire of the conspicuously materialistic lifestyle exemplified by poseurs who claim to be from that particular neighborhood, from which true natives rarely admit to be, mostly on account of the poseurs and its reputation for incredible opulence.
(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ The reason most Westerners fail to realize this is because a large symptom of this affluenza is dressed up in indulging in Western things; however, it is done to an extent few Westerners would dare for fear of going bankrupt.
(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ One particularly dastardly fad a few years back was to leave the price tags on expensive suits just to show off. That should say it all.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ Damn, this cigarette's lasting FOR EVAR.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ >>186 needs to work on their understanding of cause and effect, or was making a joke that went over my head.

(″･ิ_･ิ)っ-̾ It's usually the latter