Momma Angel wrote:dlowan Wrote:
Quote:That is one of the funniest statements I have ever seen here.
It is, in a sense, intellectual onomatopoeia, also.
1) Could you tell me why it's so funny to you?
2) I looked up that word and I think am not exactly sure what you meant. So, before I comment, can you explain what you mean?
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I just gotta jump in here. What was meant is substantially and substantively more self evident than anything relating to the specific subset of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia to which by your post we must conclued you subscribe and which in your posts to these discussions is incessantly proselytized yet never defended or supported in any forensically valid, rational manner.
So to your questions:
Quote:1) Could you tell me why it's so funny to you?
Your statement that you " ...
can agree with separation of church and state to a certain degree. I cannot agree to it when it conflicts with the laws of God" presents a classic oymoronic, self-cancelling absurdity, based on a central proposition which proceeds from an illicit premise supported only within its own canon and tradition, ignores the concept of Constitutional Law, and purports, in the absence of any legitimte validation whatsoever, the ascendance of a particular interpretatation of a particular religious construct over both any other religious construct and over any sociopolitical construct, while claiming to not do so. Such a statement exemplifies in signal manner all that is entailed within the concept popularly referred to as brainwashing.
The humor therein is akin to that to be found found in watching a tail-docked dog frenetically chasing its own vestigial tale; entusiasm, energy, focus, yes - point, purpose, rationale, or prospect of success? Amusingly unvailable, given the conditions at hand and the resources available to the spinning dog, amplified by the fact the dog does not and cannot realize the futile absurdity of its endeavors in such regard, never tiring of the goalless game. What the pup is after is not merely beyond reach, it simply ain't there other than in the pup's imagination; it is an obsession dependent wholly upon that which is not.
Quote:2) I looked up that word and I think am not exactly sure what you meant. So, before I comment, can you explain what you mean?
Probably not - if it requires explantion, the underlying psychsocial prerequisites likely are no more there than the peripatetic pup's tail.
But don't let any of that in any way hinder your enjoyment of the chase.
