Kyle’s Comments (group member since Oct 11, 2009)

Kyle’s comments from the Debate group.

Yeah, a lot of Catholicism is beyond taking seriously.

That's probably closer to the truth, Dan. I dislike parts and consequences of the internet and so to eliminate those I have taken a bit of an extremist stance by saying it shouldn't exist at all.

In that specific case I would say the blood is metaphorical (unless you're a catholic).

I also understand the extent in which science literally affects all of our daily lives. That whole line of argument exploded out of what was essentially me getting sick with the almost religious reverance people have for science (though in all fairness I have an almost religious reverance for art.)

Do you really think all of my methods/arguments/views are that severly wrong and stupid?

Nathan wrote: "And I have very strongly thought of dropping out considering all the things I value for myself and want to one day become require no college at all.

What year are you in? I would say dropping out..."

Man, why can't you be like this more often? (Or is the internet where you get out stress, because I could perfectly understand this) I just want to learn things here, and it feels like you go out of your way to make people feel bad about themselves and in general. If my method and argument is indeed as weak as you say, that's something I truly want to know to better myself, but I feel like I could never know while being berated if you know what you're talking about or if you are just some random jerk on some random website.

But considering all the typos, and little wrong things you've done, it's beyond idiotic that you'd jump on that.

Shit, I'm waiting for you to point out all my typos... I'll wait. A long, long, long time.

This rather strongly suggests exactly that.... that you are above making typos.

Nathan wrote: "Honestly I could not be my age in America at a University and not use the internet.

True. But you could be there using the internet only for work and not for recreation.

You could also not be a..."

That was a bit of an overstatement, I admit. The way the world has been shrunk and people seem so dulled to things of value now... those are the negative effects I dislike.

And I have very strongly thought of dropping out considering all the things I value for myself and want to one day become require no college at all. But it would be unrealistic because our society is built around the idea that college is absolutely a necessity.

the Mona Lisa was a symbol for art. Your statement is still ridiculous, as i already pointed out.


There's one typo, my infallible friend.... And this really isn't a road you want to go down, because there's many. Unless of course you are so vain and put so much worth in this debate that you would go back and edit all of your incorrect posts. Which I in no way put past you.

Dan wrote: "Using (even by pure recreational choice) the internet doesn't negate the statement I made all that time ago.

"I don't like the Internet."

"I enjoy using the Internet."


No, you're right, those t..."

yet you could honestly learn alot if you did go to church, even as an atheist. Do you guys really not see the analogy of people telling me to leave the country because I think America is possibly not the greatest nation in the world. That argument isn't valid and niether is yours. Honestly I could not be my age in America at a University and not use the internet. Likingusing it proves nothing either. I have already explained this. If I could create a Utopia, the internet would not be in it. But I am not in a Utopia, and I cannot create one. I am in this world, and I have been raised and taught to use the internet. I kill time on the internet and I look up random information, but I think its flaws outweigh its good.

Dan wrote: "I said rarely. Meaning there are indeed cases..... Science we 'do' is different than scientific inventions we 'use.' The science itself isn't artistic.

My point about photography being scientific ..."

Thank You! this is the whole point of this! I am learning things I would have never thought of, or come across. I understand that science and art can go hand in hand, but this whole thing was originally about opinions, an dmine still holds that art alone is more valuable. (I think that's how is started.. it's hard to really remember immeresed in all of Nathan's drivel.)

Nathan wrote: "haha. i was and am imitating e.e. cummings with my little 'i's aren't you cultered?

Sure you were jackass.

I'm going to bet the percentage of people that believe that, including yourself, is zero."


the whole thing was a joke. But considering all the typos, and little wrong things you've done, it's beyond idiotic that you'd jump on that. Must mean you had nothing of value to jump on or argue against.

A degree's pretty meaningless, buddy. I'm at a prestigious university right now and the average student here is best defined as smart but not intelligent at all. I imagine you as one of them very easily. Like I said before about Ph.D's all it takes is for someone to sit there and do lots of mostly meaningless bookwork. Good job getting two degrees, but you're not impressing me or anyone who truly thinks for themselves with them. Your arguments recently speak much more clearly about your mental progression. (and it's truly sad to think that someone could go through a university and come out the other side as immature as you.)

haha. i was and am imitating e.e. cummings with my little 'i's aren't you cultered?

You need to understand how I see art to understand where I'm coming from. It is not a fact that medicine is more utilitarian than art just because you looked up the definition in one of the big boy books on your parents' bookshelf. That's the main difference between us, I reckon. I am here in an honest attempt to strenghten my ideals through challenge, to learn, and to come out the other side a better informed, more effective and valuable human being. You aren't trying to learn anything whatsoever. You have no interest in learning what others think and why. You are here for the sole purpose of making yourself feel good. That's why I called your half of the recent argument 'masturbation.'

random insult, i'm so great. You idiot!

blah blee bloo. (i've decided to use the same effective language and debating methods as you, Nathan)

Nope. (if you don't feel the need to add to the discussion neither do I)

Read the next sentence in the post you bash as your favorite example of me backpedaling. I go on to point out the difference between the two statements.

"The Mona Lisa"

"Things like the Mona Lisa"

Fuck sakes moron, I knew you didn't mean just the Mona Lisa. I didn't mean that either. Obviously the Mona Lisa was a symbol for art. Your statement is still ridiculous, as i already pointed out.


You have not pointed out a weakness in my statement at all. The only thing that appears ridiculous is the apparent confidence you have in any of your responses of late. And I chose to be careful and explain my meaning better because you had thus far demonstrated that I could not count on you to pick up or understand most of what I was trying to say.

Yes it can be argued. And you aren't allowing for the main function of art in your view. Art has very much use. In fact, if it isn't used, it's probably not good art.

And because we're still talking opinions (no matter how much you diagree that is what we are talking about) your definition is pointless. Okay, so by definition medicine is more useful than art (as you see art which seems to me quite wrong). Alright, but it's still your opinion that science is more valuable than art. You have not made any progress on that argument. And you can't really, because again, it's all opinion.

Nathan wrote: "And Nathan, I never said the Mona Lisa did more for the world than the cure for polio. Go look at my quotes again. I said things like the Mona Lisa have done more than things like vaccinations.

Sa..."


You REALLY do just quote parts of thoughts like I said. Read the next sentence in the post you bash as your favorite example of me backpedaling. I go on to point out the difference between the two statements. Or can't you read things that you can't come up with an insult for? I said I don't particularly like the Mona Lisa. There's the difference. The Mona Lisa is a bad example because it doesn't reflect the broadness of the phrase "things like the mona lisa" which encompasses all art.


And you seem to misunderstand the english term opinion. Because you can't prove yours to be better than mine. It's an opinion. You have not and can not prove all three.

You are using a very narrow understanding of art to prove an incorrect point. Art has utility. Art is beyond 'pretty to look at.' In fact that would be my definition of the lowest, least effective, worst, of all art.

The very first valid point you've made in this whole drawn out act of masturbation (on your part) is that there is a difference between valuable and usefull. Based upon that I can understand where you guys are coming from. Science MAY be more useful, but even that could be argued.