Log in

View Full Version : The Irritation Complex



hazard
1st February 2004, 01:44
TIC: the irritation complex

as a genius living in a world of complete and utter braindead morons, I have come to the conclusion that those I am forced to reside with, on this planet known as Earth, have absolutely no concept of what intelligence is. why? because they are not. intelligent. because they are not intelligent.

so what the herd is forced to do, quite simply, is conduct themselves in as many irritating ways as they can. the logic is simple for these types. they are not stupid because they can cause intelligent people, like me, to become irritated. be it by passing a comment about your wife that is inflamatory, making an annoying sound, or fucking around with your personal belongings, the herd can only delude themselves into the false belief that they are not the cattle they behave like. here is the logical breakdown.

1)that person is smart
2)I am not
3)if I can cause the smart person to become irritated, I am smarter than them
4)for if that person is smart (1), and I am not (2), I can be smarter than that person through irritating them (3)

however, under the herd mentality, an insect can outsmart somebody. a rain storm can outsmart somebody, an involuntary reflexive action can outsmart somebody. a disturbing image, patch of ice, or unexpected bill can outsmart somebody. what we have is the logic of idiots running rampant throughout a population defined only through such stupidity.

the logical slip in the 4 component explanation is simple. it comes down to CAUSING A REACTION. such as if I were to snap my fingers, I would hear a sound. when I snap my fingers, I fully expect a sound to be produced. I would only be shocked if I were to not hear a sound. so, when I perform an action, I expect a reaction. it is the sort of conclusion most people realize before they begin grammar school. however, under the herd concept, it is the same conclusion most people forget about. and no matter how many times you explain it to them, they still refuse to acknowledge it as only an indication and furthur proof of their idiocity.

so, under the slip, a person performs an irritating action and receives an irritated result. this does not prove they are smart, because only an idiot would be amazed or impressed by incurring the expected result of their action. BUT THEY CONTINUE! irritation serves no furthur purpose than the action under which it was devised. this I call the TWO STEP. the herd cannot grasp this, and take a THIRD step, move forward and forget about constantly irritating others for the sheer sake of an irritated result. if the THIRD step were ever to be taken, the herd would quickly realize that performing actions that have the same result as an insect, an unwelcome wind gust or involuntyary eflexive action means they have about as much mental processing ability as all of these. WHICH IS NONE. and so the cycle continues. two stepping, as in walking in one place, until the last breathes taken in their lives, none the wiser. fondly remmebering all of the grand little irritating things they did throughout their lives and somehow satisified with their false conclusion that they are not stupid.

TIC

next lecture will be on TAC

Individual
3rd February 2004, 17:58
So your logic is that if you irritate me enough, you outsmart me because I am irritated? This can be proven false. What if a 'real' genius was irritated by a whining child, what is to say the child has outsmarted this man? What if the man was waiting to be irritated and therefore was not truly affected by the irritant, only slightly irritated? Are there different degrees of irritation? What is to say what is an irritant and what is not? Have you used the scientific method to prove this theorem, or did you make this up as you type? Interesting thoughts, however your conclusion is unclear. What is to say this theorem works?

ps. I would try not to think so highly of yourself. It really won't be to good for you when you come out of your box...


as a genius living in a world of complete and utter braindead morons

hazard
4th February 2004, 00:02
right away I resent your "box" comment. it is a prime example of what I am going to call intentional irritation. nevertheless, I will allow this to pass.

scientific theorum, whatever the fuck you mean by that, need not apply to a philsophical matrix. fuckhead

I am speaking in reagrds to personal expereince. which is all philosophy is really about. the fallacy of "outsmarting" is the best reason I can think why great droves of the population even bother behaving in irritating ways. such as the way you have behaved. otherwise why bother doing, or saying something, that is intentionally irritating?

if it isn't to convince yourown feeble mind that you aren't as stupid as I know you are, you are even more stupid than that. you are only being irritating for not even the sake of being an irritation. at this point, you literally ARE in the same mental capacity as an insect or a hailstone or a cow that doesn't know when to stop chewing its own cud.

Individual
4th February 2004, 05:26
wohh.. Well hazard I can see you still have a 'problem' with me.. Your comment:


you literally ARE in the same mental capacity as an insect or a hailstone or a cow that doesn't know when to stop chewing its own cud

resembles what you have said to me on a PM. Very intelligent you are indeed. Instead of spending your time barking at me. Why don't you try and explain how you have even come to this conclusion. Good theory, however my thoughts are that you have an infatuation with 'irritation'. As you have called me an "irritant" before. That seems to be a big word of yours.

And since you are just so darn smart (and I am 'the equivalent of an insect'?) how about you answer some of my questions. Before you get all defensive, how about you actually try and prove/add on to your own theory. Answer these questions for me, because I am just too stupid to figure them out...


Are there different degrees of irritation?
What is to say what is an irritant and what is not?
Have you used the scientific method to prove this theorem?

And I would of thought that a self proclaimed 'genius' would have known what a scientific method was, or have you not made it to 6th grade science yet?

It would make sense to atleast have something to back up your theory, instead of just stating it. Give me a reason why I should believe this theorem of yours (ie. have you observed human behavior).

Not to get personal, just found this a bit funny. To start off, where have you graduated from (if at all)? What are your degrees in. Well you are a self proclaimed genius correct? Well I won't get carried away. But I just thought genius's had some concept of grammar. Guess not in your case though. Example Dr. Genius Hazard... Run on sentence maybe? Could just be complete and utter nonsense? I'll let you explain this for me..


as a genius living in a world of complete and utter braindead morons, I have come to the conclusion that those I am forced to reside with, on this planet known as Earth, have absolutely no concept of what intelligence is. why? because they are not. intelligent. because they are not intelligent.

So we are not intelligent? Only you?

Pedro Alonso Lopez
4th February 2004, 08:45
Hazard he is simply replying to your theory and questioning it. Do you expect everyone to just accept your theory offhand because you proclaim yourself to be a genius?

Rasta Sapian
4th February 2004, 17:51
hazard your posts are irritating me! Please find a new way to deal with your personal problems instead of venting trough your posts.............

che's long lost daughter
4th February 2004, 17:58
Delusional Disorder: Grandiosity ;)

hazard
5th February 2004, 01:31
please see my follow up topic TAC

this should explain the TIC a bit more thoroughly

AQ:

just using you as an example. the insect remark has more to do with the TIC acronym anyway.

Individual
5th February 2004, 04:31
hazard.

To tell you the honest truth. Because your writing is so powerful and has such a strong genius presense, I am to scared to read your other topic.

Actually to tell you the real honest truth. I started to read your 'TAC', however I could not fathom reading the whole thing as it made no sense. How about you just try and prove your 'TIC' theory to me by answering some of my simple questions. Would that be so hard, or have you not thought that deep on the subject yet?

Another question I have. Because I tend to 'irritate' you so much. Do you ever feel that maybe you fall under your own theory? You tend to 'irritate' me quite a bit with all this proclamation of you as a "genius".

Now for the real truth on your theorem's. I can now prove and disprove your theorems. Here goes:

Proof (haha): You are irritating me by claiming you are a genius (by the way, a real genius would actually admit he/she knows close to nothing), therefore by irritating me, whether I am more intelligent or not, you are now more intelligent than I for you have irritated me. So you are intentionally irritating people so that you become this 'genius'. So by proclaiming yourself as a genius, you are both irritating, and stating (your so called) fact because the irritant would now be the genius. Correct? Ok then..

Disproving your theory: This is similar to the proof, however slightly different scenario. You claim that I am irritating you, therefore I would be the more intelligent one, for I am the irritant. However I cannot be the more intellingent one because you are a self-proclaimed 'genius' and I have the "same mental capacity as an insect or a hailstone or a cow that doesn't know when to stop chewing its own cud". Therefore your theory is false for the irritant is no longer more intelligent.

This is what has led me not to read your second post completely, for it is utter nonsense. Do you get what I am saying here? And if I have your theorem's all wrong. Then you may not get angered at myself, for you are the 'genius' that has explained them (partially, fails to explain more in detail) to me.

By the way, please take time to answer my other questions, for I am curious.

hazard
5th February 2004, 04:55
the best way to answer your questions will be to furthur elaborate upon the TIC

it comes down to the intent

now, the intent is not JUST to irritate

it is the intent to irritate for the purpose of proving one's intelligence

I listed a little logical summary in 3 points and a conclusion

if I am irritating you, regardless of whether or not I am doing so to intentionally irritate you, it is only a TIC if I am doing so t porve that I am smarter than you

I dunno. under TAc it wuld be impossible to prove the TIC anyway. like if I was to say that it makes you stupid if you think it makes you look smart if you can irritate me. a TIC wuld just deny that was the reasn why they're ding it. even if that is why.

there is an unstated assumptin here that those involved in TICing hold the belief that "it is intelligent to not become irritated by irritants". like I had a friend who drank a flaming zambooka one night and lit his head on fire because he forgot to blow out the flame. he claimed he wasn't irritated by it. now I'm not calling him stupid, but what the fuck. like there was the camp counseler who had mosquitos crawling ALL over him. he claimed that it didn't irritate him. what in the name of fuck. like there was this time that this punk kept tripping on his shoelaces cause they wouldn't stay tied up. didn't bother him one bit though. apparently. what in all fuck.

a logical person would at least cede that these things irritate them. but there is a societal problem in regards to irritants and the so called ability to withstand them as some sort of measure of a person's intelligence. it must be programmed into us by tolerating Tv ads and jingles and shit for so many years. thats one benefit of not watching TV any more. much TV anymore. which might make me, right now, more suscpetible to irritation since I am not being programmed daily to tolerate irritations on the tube.