FAQ

Q: Oh hai Mr. Liberal Helpypants. And hey there, Mr. Conservative Flaggybomper. Oh and howdy do to you, Mr. Thirdparty Jazzhanddistraction. What do ya'll think about the violence inherent in the system?

A: It is regrettable but necessary.

Q: What can we do? Do we really want this for ourselves?

A: Don't be daft. It is what it is.

Q: A thing is itself? 

A: Vote for me and a thing can be whatever you want it to be. LOL! I'm just kidding unless you believed me. But seriously. Maybe. It is it. Is it? We can all agree it is is or it is it. Freedom and the children and the future. [APPLAUSE] To answer your question, I do claim cultural and moral relativism, but my actions will clearly show I accept objective reality.

Q: Neat trick. So we accept the law of identity and agree a thing is itself, consistently 
observable and quantifiable over time. You agree with science, right? (You can choose not to answer the question, Mr. Flaggybomber)

A: Science is great! We need to regrettably use the violence inherent in the system to fund more pointless research into...

Q: Sorry to interrupt, but I get the point (that you have obviously missed). So back to "it". Do the properties of "it" include being immutable? What physical and chemical properties are known about "it"? Has "it" been observed to have changed over time or in different conditions? How and why? Have these claims been empirically tested?

A: Don't be dumb. Obviously rationalization and regurgitation of talking points. And anyway red herring. So shifting the burden of proof, you'll see you're an anarcho-atheist who subverts common decency and engages in orgies with headpots and crackhorses.

Q: . Yeah, while wearing a Hitler mustache. But why put forth absolute certainty without tested hypotheses? Could there not be a better way of interacting with other human beings?

A: Dismissive pity. I used to be just like nostalgia. That reminds me of deflecting with humor. Wisdom of the ancients and appeal to authority.

Q: That seems patently false and also irrelevant. Why? 

A: Because moving the goalposts and circular reasoning.

Q: Why?

A: Resort to anger. Clear indication that I meant I do not want to talk or think about "it". Ad hominem.

Q: You seem upset. Why?

A: Because you're disturbing the arbitrary piecemeal peace law and rapidly approaching the last straw. There's a gun in the room and it's about to be drawn. Reason is a threat both foreign and domestic and naturally creates a prattle among the citizen-slave chattel. Take your scientific methods and Socratic junkie meth-heads and accidentally trip in our beds of freshly planted hemlock or we'll lock you up in cages and ask how pleasant your precious peasant ass feels. You're our property and property doesn't ask questions; it does what it's told and thinks what we tell it and we'll make our properties think you're a terrorist. 

Q: I'd say nice freestyle, but that isn't a fashion you're into. Why so serious?

A: Because I use the violence inherent in the system.

Appropriate response: FAQ you!