Bachelor Man
Special Abilities: Can do anything he damn well pleases, whenever he pleases, without prior permission or a requirement to inform anyone of his whereabouts or activities. Has the capacity to laze about on a couch, completely relaxed, for unlimited time periods without suffering injury, discomfort, or other penalty. Can drink alcohol to double the blood-alcohol-concentration of lesser mortals before suffering hangover or other effects.
Special Restrictions: Incapable of event planning beyond a 24-hour horizon, except a small category of special events including "stag" parties, major sporting events, or multi-day road trips.
Immunities and Vulnerabilities: Immune to COMMITMENT. Vulnerable to PROCRASTINATION.
Sidekicks and Allies: None. Bachelor man has friends, but he's just chillin'.
Enemies: Golddigger (rarely), Nagging-mother-who-wants-grandchildren (if he ever calls).
In searching for a picture for this post, I discovered a 2003 film named "BachelorMan". It's got the usual stupid "bachelor man falls hopelessly in love and rethinks his ways" plot, so I'm not going to link to it. Can somebody, somewhere, please make a movie where the Ladies Man DOES NOT get married?
The actual picture I used is of Tucker Max, I hope I'm not violating copyright here.
7 comments:
to one named brummell: sorry, but you missed the entire point. i am not an advocate of philosophy or the use of it in semantics, the very reason why i wrote my message. another thing: an imagined thing should never be equated with things that can only be explained through metaphysics. for instance, if i imagine you to be a vile serpent is not equivalent to the Christian truth that God exists. And, you are entitled to your own reaction, may it be undignified and juvenile, i shall let it be. so i am not about to demand an apology, you already showed your jekyll side. it does not change who you truly are. you can stomp your feet all day, or gnash your teeth for hours, pull your hair in anger, it is your choice and decision in the end. no cares from me really. that's all.
******
oh man, why were you so affected with my post at carlo's site that you have to resort to invectives and foul words? that's so uneducated, gawd. are you mad that i find the mad scientist cute?
you actually did not get my point and your own unverified reading of what i wrote made you turn into something other than civilised, which probably caused your syntactical errors.
like, hello?! think evolution of man. at what point do you fall into, given your ill-worded remarks?
I'm not clear on what you're trying to say, either here or at your earlier comments on Carlo's blog.
If you were not advocating other ways of knowing besides empirical scientific testing, why did you write this: ?
"empirical truth is [not] the one and only truth. just because it is not testable and does not bear any semblance to empirical truth does not automatically mean it does not exist and it is not real."
If I missed your point completely, then I am sorry - but your statement seems pretty clear.
Also, what is the difference between Metaphysics and Philosophy? I admit that I am ignorant of the distinction.
Moving on, what does
like, hello?! think evolution of man. at what point do you fall into, given your ill-worded remarks?
even mean? Think evolution of man? What are you talking about?
Finally, I do not consider my wording to be "undignified and juvenile" or Jekyllian. I called your argument "Bullshit". This is not an ad hominem attack upon you - I was expressing an opinion of one thing you wrote, not an opinion of you, personally.
Thank you for bringing this discussion here to my blog, which is a more appropriate venue than the two of us cluttering up Carlo's cyberspace.
Hey jaspercaesar, I think that something that may have created this cafuffle is that, people who tend to study specific things (Politics, Biology, Philosophy, etc.) tend to be very, very anal about wording. I am not suggesting that you are uneducated. Allow me to explain:
In colloquial use, Country/State/Nation can all mean the same thing. However, to a political scientist, they all have VERY distinct meanings (as I learned in the course of essay writing). So if I'm going to have a debate in Poli-Sci, I'd better use them correctly or I'll confuse people.
In this case, the word "Truth" is very, very different from the word "fact". Here's a good definition:
"This is a word best avoided entirely in [science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths."
I'm not exactly sure what an "Empircal Truth" is? Is that the same thing as a "fact"? Because their are no Christian "facts", there are facts about Christianity for instance, but not the former.
And don't be too hard on Brummell, he's a nice guy who enjoys lively debate. His words may have been strong, but they were directed at your comment and not yourself (which is more than I can say about comments he's directed at me!)
Brummel says: WTF? Calling my mind "beautiful" will not prevent me calling you on your psuedo-philosophical bullshit.
"WTF" is very dignified and mature eh?
"will not prevent me calling you..." calling me what, bullshit? This is, in your own terms, again, dignified and educated?
"calling you on your(sic) psuedo(sic)-philosophical bullshit" is not an obvious attack?
you see, if you are TAing (assist teaching) students, you should follow always proper decorum because you are a teacher, albeit, assistant. and let us say, i am your student (even if i am not), do you think that your language is a positive reflection of your supposed stature?
if you do not understand what i wrote, sorry but i can not help you uplift your reading comprehension level.
think first before you write something because in the course of your intention to relay your message clearly, you dilute it by throwing in unnecessary rudeness.
if it wasn't obvious to begin with - i was questioning the manner of debunking other people's views using semantics and philosophy.
but you, with your poultry understanding thought i was advocating philosophical analysis.
how come you have to resort to name-calling, insults, invectives and foul words if you think you knew better than I do? Isn't there no way of putting it nicely?
Do not be vile if you think you are right and I am wrong. Im pretty sure you are non-MENSAn anyways.
since you are in the field of education, you should not just leave a legacy of knowledge but also a model of good values and GMRC among the impressionable minds you are TAing by being one, unless if your set of values are warped.
Hi Jaspercaesar, welcome back.
Blah blah blah. I'm not trying to teach you, I'm trying to understand what you have written - if you don't feel like elaborating to "uplift your reading comprehension level", that's fine, but please don't count that as a coherent argument.
Once again, I was not calling YOU bullshit, I was calling YOUR ARGUMENT bullshit.
Why are you mentioning MENSA?
how come you have to resort to name-calling, insults, invectives and foul words if you think you knew better than I do? Isn't there no way of putting it nicely?
First, while I know that English is apparently not your first language, the use of double negatives serves only to weaken any argument you may be trying to make. Second, there may well be a nicer way of expressing my opinion - but I don't want to stay nice, nice is boring. I find insult-trading intellectually stimulating, since great creativity is required for the best slings. Third, capitalization and punctuation have their place in comment threads, too.
Finally, I do not agree that a teacher should necessarily provide your idea of a perfectly polite role-model - I aim not to insult my students, but to insult and ridicule their stupid beliefs, that they may abandon such idiocy in favour of reasoned argument.
What the hell?!?
Brummell, English may not be my native language but apparently your use of it is replete with errors,to think that it is your native tongue. What a shame!
And I am sorry to disappoint you that I have won international writing competitions in English. Have you?
If you feel that shooting down idiotic beliefs is your game, then you should have shot yourself first in the mouth.
After all you are ugly and do not deserve this polite world.
Mwahahahahahaha
You must be a terribly sad person with a terribly bad childhood for being too cynical and negative to your approaches in life. Oh well, with one having such an ugly face is no surprise to acting that way.
Great minds do not have to resort to mudslinging to prove one's point. Good naturedness always win in the end.
What is true, good, and beautiful remain to be the standard for proper human interaction.
Hi Jaspercaeser,
I was wondering what had become of you... and today I discover you have returned to this 9-month-old comment thread.
I've written a post or two since last September; I'm not asking you to read my more recent stuff, but it's there if you're interested.
I eagerly await your next round of name-calling followed by exhortations of the effectiveness and greatness of polite discourse free of insults. I may not find and respond to it very quickly, though, as I admit I do not browse my older posts very often, and do not check the email account that recieves notifications of comments here very often, either. Please accept my apologies for the resulting delays.
Post a Comment