- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 16,397
- Reaction score
- 2,275
I think Michael Jackson and the Pepsi commercial incident would be the best example.
Precisely.
I think Michael Jackson and the Pepsi commercial incident would be the best example.
I agree, I'm uneducated on artists, cos I choose to pursue physical pursuits than reading - wanna game of tennis?
So feel free to name some artists.
Again, it seems your image of the strong silent type is important to you; it's not coming across that way, unfortuntely. Just bitchy.
You're taking this way too personally. Take my advice, don't take internet seriously. And tennis is not my cup of tea, thank you. It's too gentle. But I am up for a game of fighting anytime. All in good spirit, of course.
Why you gotta steal my thunder man.I think Michael Jackson and the Pepsi commercial incident would be the best example.
And here we go again. Completely missing the point. For the last time, reason has got nothing to do with it. Study Schopenhauer and then we'll talk.
No, I didn't miss it. You're seeking refuge in the world of irrational self confirming BS. I just thought I wouldn't pay attention to it, in the hope you might come to the conclusion that this is you.
Legit philosophical minds understand that even when venturing into the metaphysical, they have to use some kind of reason to justify their views. There is simply no legitimacy if you have zero explanation for something. Your mind makes conclusions based on information. Your mind is still your mind even when making conclusions about the metaphysical. You can't simply state something is the way it is, without giving information from which your conclusions were formed, and the more the better. As others can then agree or argue your stance based on the information that gives it it's legitimacy. But you have the preconceived notion that others aren't on your level, so they can't touch your stance. But if it was really such a strong irrefutable stance, you could support it with all the thoughts that have you convinced it's right and we wouldn't be able to make a dent in it anyway, and with your superior mind you could make that clear to us.
But what really is the case with you, and most other narcissists, is that they build walls around themselves to protect themselves from other people's opinions and most importantly critique. Because they can't handle being wrong. They are much too sensitive to critique, because they have never learned to deal with it in a honest way because of those walls.
And here we go again. Completely missing the point. For the last time, reason has got nothing to do with it. Study Schopenhauer and then we'll talk.
No, I didn't miss it. You're seeking refuge in the world of irrational self confirming BS. I just thought I wouldn't pay attention to it, in the hope you might come to the conclusion that this is you.
Legit philosophical minds understand that even when venturing into the metaphysical, they have to use some kind of reason to justify their views. There is simply no legitimacy if you have zero explanation for something. Your mind makes conclusions based on information. Your mind is still your mind even when making conclusions about the metaphysical. You can't simply state something is the way it is, without giving information from which your conclusions were formed, and the more the better. As others can then agree or argue your stance based on the information that gives it it's legitimacy. But you have the preconceived notion that others aren't on your level, so they can't touch your stance. But if it was really such a strong irrefutable stance, you could support it with all the thoughts that have you convinced it's right and we wouldn't be able to make a dent in it anyway, and with your superior mind you could make that clear to us.
But what really is the case with you, and most other narcissists, is that they build walls around themselves to protect themselves from other people's opinions and most importantly critique. Because they can't handle being wrong. They are much too sensitive to critique, because they have never learned to deal with it in a honest way because of those walls.
Now now, let's not start ganging up on AmbivalenceKing; remember his day is not complete unless he can feel smart on an internet discussion board.
Just bare in mind this is the only place he can garner any self esteem; I mean, he categorises himself as strong silent - I think in reality that means he is socially awkward - noone in the real world wants to talk to him and he doesn't know how to talk to people normally. So he comes on here being very loquacious and smarty pants (very unsilent strong type) to make up for it, to feel some sense of accomplishment.
Unfortunately, as I said, he just comes across as bitchey, and basically any intelligence he has can be attributed to google; he has no wit or charm.
So let's just let him have his little moments of 'superiority'.
Back on topic:
Roald Dahl, British novelist, pretty much smashed it in literature since the 40's.
Dunno how familiar you'd be across the pond... his books are smashing for children and adults alike.
Kevin Costner in the nineties. Waterworld and The Postman? Nobody will ever eclipse that accomplishment.
Roald Dahl, British novelist, pretty much smashed it in literature since the 40's.
Dunno how familiar you'd be across the pond... his books are smashing for children and adults alike.