Do you consider a "Modest Proposal" to be spam? Simply because I have chosen to take a different approach to arguing my point doesn't make it spam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
Printable View
Do you consider a "Modest Proposal" to be spam? Simply because I have chosen to take a different approach to arguing my point doesn't make it spam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
You quoted something from 40oz and asked about me, was that accidental?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
Yes, this is sarcasm. It worked for Jonathan Swift, so I figured the same technique could be used to make a point about all this global warming B.S. I also debated between this and the science board, and ultimately, due to the political motivations behind global warming, I felt this was the appropriate board.
By the way, it annoys me when people don't get sarcasm. I'm not talking about you, you were simply clarifying I wasn't a complete idiot. We had to read "A Modest Proposal" in one of my English classes yet again and someone actually tried to discuss how ridiculous the proposal was and about how he had to be crazy... "Who would actually propose eating children," she asked.
what a splendid idea! i had quite forgotten, but it seems a perfect solution to our dilemma. not only would eating our children provide us with a low impact source of sustenance, but it would further reduce this pesky organism known as man.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Cannibalism in general is positive to all societies. Unfortunately, cooking them would increase our carbon footprint... actually, imagine the disease that would be spread from eating them raw. I think we may have just stumbled into a great solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity
I will begin drawing up the legal documents in the next several days. Thank you for the great idea... Than again, I will commit the legal documents to memory, I would hate to kill a tree while attempting to save them. I don't want to be a hypocrite.
plague, famine and degradation.
i think we've hit the trifecta.
a return to mankind in his most primitive state.
so much for the noble savage.
I think its very interesting that usually the ones that think the earth was made exclusively for the humans benefit (and profit) are the sames who are vehemently against the idea that God created the world (in seven days) just for the mankind... contraditory, it isnt?
People left religion behind... now they know. But what is the use of knowing that the universe appeared billions of years ago and that our earth is only a grain of sand among uncountable stars and galaxies and whatever else if people still thinks in the same medieval ways, when mankind was the center of the universe?
I think it wasnt much of a evolution...
nevermind, i'm tired and read that wrong.