More idiotic semantic games. A new low even for you. A conversation with a friend:
Hi Jim, how are you?
Hi Bill. Oh, I just evolved a cold.
Sorry to hear. My dog evolved. We buried him under the tree in the backyard.
I hope you are very young, because then there si hope that you'll grow out of this nasty stupid phase
I got your goat merely by asking you to tell me what (if anything) it is for a housecat named Fritz to
evolve. It embarrasses you, because, as you and I both know, you
can't answer the question; you're incompetent to explain what (if anything) it is for a particular housecat (or Tom the tortoise, or Eliza the elephant, etc.) to
evolve, and so, again, you act all snotty at me. I'm just the messenger, so why rail against me? You cherish absurdity and nonsense; I merely help you to see that what you cherish is absurdity and nonsense, and you gnash your teeth in anger at me for doing so, because you cherish your absurdity and nonsense.
- Does Fritz the housecat evolve? Yes or No?
[*]If so, when does Fritz the housecat evolve?
[*]What, exactly, is Fritz the housecat's evolving? Describe Fritz's evolving.
[*]Into what (if anything) does Fritz the housecat evolve?
|
You are livid--not so much because you cannot answer questions such as these as because they are asked of you in the first place, and you, put on the spot by them, demonstrate your inability to answer them by failing to answer them. How ridiculous for someone, like you, who loves to parrot the phrase, "the theory of evolution", to not even be able to answer such a fundamental question as to what it is for one, plain, old housecat, or Shamu the killer whale, to EVOLVE. Do you think that it is somehow
not a basic, fundamental, essential requisite, for something called "the theory of evolution" to be able to say what it is for your pet dog to
evolve?
It's interesting how much of an obsession you have for saying the word, "semantic". The game I'm playing, if you feel like calling it a game, is merely one of asking you to try to say what (if anything) you imagine you mean by the slogans you--because of deleterious mental conditioning--are in the habit, as a Darwin cheerleader, of parroting meaninglessly. Does not 'semantic' mean
having to do with the meanings of words and phrases? Why you don't like me talking semantically to you is because you mean absolutely nothing by your fairy-tale Darwinism jargon, and, by talking semantically to you--by asking you about your fairy-tale Darwinism jargon, you are forced to expose--by your inability to answer my questions--your own incompetence to explain your jargon, and the vacuousness of it. I understand why you're angry; you're not
justifiably angry, but I understand why you are angry.
Why saying that an opponent is
semantical is so commonly considered to be
pejorative, and is done with an intent to be pejorative toward that opponent, is an absolute mystery to me. One of the prominent features of your (and Arthur Brain's, and others') immense foolishness, as Darwin cheerleaders, is your manifest disregard for the question of whether or not you even mean anything by the things you say. One of your problems, as Darwin cheerleaders, is that not only are you not semantical about the slogans you chant, but you are downright anti-semantical....which is exactly why you keep on chanting the meaningless slogans you chant. You, Arthur Brain, and every other Darwin cheerleader, mean no more by words like "evolve", and "evolution", than a football stadium cheerleader would mean, were she waving pom-poms and shouting, "Give me an E, give me a V, give me an O, give me an L, give me a U, give me a T, give me an I, give me an O, give me an N, give me an exclamation point!!!" The difference is that she--the football cheerleader--wouldn't be so arrogantly stupid as to go about pretending like she
really does mean something by it, as you, Arthur Brain, and every other Darwin cheerleader, pretend to do.
