0
   

If sarcasm is not sarcasm

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 02:33 am
If sarcasm is not sarcasm and in fact is some other form of conclusion from environmental parameters forced by logic to exist, given it is the individuals right to reveal personal details or not...

Is it lying, to not decimate the target which creates it?

Factors to consider:
Human flaw of mistake in moments.
Human flaw of mistake left as mistake.
World flaw of preference to emotional contentment rather than safety and security.
Network subsystem fallibility.
Intelligence agencies permission and or lack of observation.
Intelligence agencies ethical codes of conduct relative to hardware VS biological software manipulation containment protocols.

Further factors at base of assumed direction can be presented.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,263 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 02:39 am
@nothingtodo,
No. How often do people say something really stupid, only to realize at a later time they were being sarcastic.?
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 02:40 am
@roger,
Nominally there is objective at level X.
Above, denoted by stoicism and containment procedures provided by wiser forum members.

So it is a secondary consideration of emotional concern pertaining to truth?

To answer your question, the term 'stupid' appears variable the notion across a graph, relative to assorted vectoring factors. External and internal, societal and singular. So it follows clearly to yourself, and myself, that it is incalculable when some post lies on purpose.

It would also remain incalculable due to emotional range of the questioned and the variances therein.
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 02:59 am
@nothingtodo,
Answer in light of failure to respond directly to the question beyond complacency, of general belief.

When such is clear, if at all, people feel they are attacked by a force larger than themselves, yet it is they who attack themselves or they have not clicked 'ignore' when they should have.

It could be them who wish the world so veiled and the remainder who would alter this possibility. However flaws exist in that assumption per percentage section.

Awaiting clarity.
nothingtodo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2013 03:41 am
@nothingtodo,
Answer part 2.
That people already lie on both poles, means they cannot deduce the correct answer, so act in incorrect reactionary ways, sometimes.

Emotion is by its very nature a lie told to oneself without ones own knowledge, abuse is the knowing it.

Awaiting clarity.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 04:27 pm
@nothingtodo,
Quote:
World flaw of preference to emotional contentment rather than safety and security.
In my assessment I can find little flaw in the preference usually granted to emotional contentment rather than safety and security.
Emotional contentment is the method of exchange of information between subsystems, thus I also find no:
Quote:
Network subsystem fallibility.


I believe that as of this point in my reasoning, it will remain internally consistent, to not decimate the creator of sarcasms.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

It's about time for a2k prime - Question by neologist
Is my mind.. - Question by anonymously99stwin
Bloody Hilarious - Question by blueveinedthrobber
liberals should be allowed to marry. - Discussion by dyslexia
Punctuation - The Sarcasm Mark - Discussion by Butrflynet
A Happy Propensity - Discussion by Mame
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If sarcasm is not sarcasm
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 03:49:22