The Art of How to Pick a Fight: And Win!


The Art of How to Pick a Fight: And Win!

 I often will post my blog articles on Reddit to increase my blog stats. Hehehehe. I'm sort of a blog whore. I like big numbers, for no reason.

 But also I like to argue with the idiots. Like that one time I posted an anti-gun rant on the gun page. Classic me!

 Granted, I only pick fights with the ones who directly insult me.

 I won't pick fights with those who disagree. Those who simply disagree are within their right to do so. These people want a conversation, so I let them talk.

On the other hand, if some wise guy or smart-ass tries to start something, by calling me names and belittling me for no other reason than they disagree, and can't seem to do so cordially because they are vile soulless individuals without a conscience, which surprisingly far too many are (at least online), then I like to think of the MEANEST possible thing to say to them and then say it.

 Oh, I'm such a hoot! lol lol LOL

 It may not be moral, or even healthy behavior, but it sure is fun!

Heck, someone today called me a disgrace of an ex-pat for SIMPLY living in Japan.

 Oh, ouch! I'm soooo multicultural... what an insult. Stupid fucking idiot.

 Then he told me I am no good because I don't spend my time helping the Japanese regain the freedoms they had lost.

 Not knowing what the hell this idiot was talking about, and clearly it wasn't important since he didn't try to make any clear or level-headed point, I told him to do everybody a favor and take his gun he's so in love with and shove it up his... well you get the point.

 If people want to play insult games... I crown myself King. Just like in checkers. Because I'm a baddass man, haven't you heard?

 Also because I simply don't care. Not if they don't.

 I mean, if you cannot care about others enough to even be civil, then to hell with you, I ain't gonna be civil... to YOU. If you're going to act like an idiot then I'm gonna have fun with that at your expense.

 But don't feel bad, you made yourself the butt of the joke. Congratulations! You're laughable.

 Hell, the worse that could happen is you feel so bad you go out and sign up for an evening course at your community college to learn how to stop being such a dunce.

Luckily, none of you here are in danger of my cold-hearted yet extremely likable wrath. I know you're thanking God right about now, but don't. I don't like the competition.

 But, hey, I'm a good guy. No, really, I am. Those that know me seem to agree (regardless of whether or not they're not being forced to--that says something, doesn't it?). 

 So if you know any idiots, send them my way. I'll clobber them with WORDS.

 Cuz you know what?


Maybe then they will wish they were a little bit smarter. 

But, you know, probably not.

 Since, well, the cold hard fact is, nobody as smart as me. Not nobody not no how! You know this. I know you know. How? It's a law of physics. It would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE to be as awesome and intelligent and good looking as me.

 Clearly.

So the moral of the story is, if you want to pick a fight and win, then that's simple, just be me. Then you'll be so awesome you'll always win, no matter what. 

 I know what you're thinking, that's impossible too! Not if you were me. But for those who can't be me, just try to be like me, and that's a step in the right direction.

Good luck! 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more