♑ > Bread, an essay. By Gamzee Makara, age 16.

[420]

[Error: Your private message to user Karkat Vantassee it's like could not be posted. Message has instead been rerouted to the network. |


Which... is not even something that should be possible! Gamzee. Gamzee, how the fuck did you manage this. People spend hours hacking to manage shit like this. It must have been a

wait for it


waaaaait



colossal accident.]



BrEaD, rIgHt?
MoThErFuCkIn bReAd.
YoU EvEr rEaLlY GoT YoUr mOtHeRfUcKiN PrOpEr rEaLiZaTiOn oN At wHaT KiNd oF SiCk lEvElS Of dOpE BrEaD Is?
LiKe fIrSt yEaH, tHe fUcK DoEs iT EvEn uP AnD CoMe fRoM, mAn?
HaVe yOu eVeR LaId gAnDeR At a bReAd bUsH? oR On lIkE A FuCkIn tOaSt tReE?
No!! cAuSe i'm tElLiNg yOu, BrO, tHaT ShIt's 100 pErCeNtS Of pUrE MoThErFuCkIn mIrAcLeS.
BrEaD JuSt *Is*.
YoU CaN'T ExPlAiN ThAt, YoU CaN'T PuT YoUr mOtHeRfUcKiN ScIeNcE At bReAd.
BrEaD DoN'T PlAy lIkE ThAt
ShIt's pLuCkEd aLl tOgEtHeR FrOm pUrE FuCkInG MiRaClEs.
AnD Ok lIkE
ThE FuCk iS UuUuUuP WiTh hOw mOtHeRfUcKiN GoOd iT MaKeS EvErYtHiNg iN YoUr tRaP?
LiKe wOaOaH, i dId pUt sOmE Of mY PiE JuSt tHe fUcK NoW AlLs oN A SwEeT-AsS SlIcE Of tOaSt aNd hOlY ShIt, BeSt bRoThEr, I'M TeLlInG ThIs sHiT StRaIgHt aT YoU, tHaT WaS MoThErFuCkIn aMaZiNg bEiNg.
HoW ThE FuCk dOeS BrEaD Do tHaT?
WhO WeNt aNd tOlD It tO AlL Be aBoUt mAkInG EvErYtHiNg tAsTe gOoD?
LiKe, YoU CaN Be lIkE PuTtInG A SlIcE Of wInGbEaSt mEaT On iT RiGhT AnD ThAt sHiT'S GoOd eAtInG BuT YoU CaN AlSo uP AnD CoVeR ThAt mOtHeRfUcKeR WhAt wItH ThE MoSt rIgHtEoUs oF JeLlY WhAt a bRoThEr cAn pUt cLaW On aNd tHe sHiT'S StIlL GoOd.
HoW CaN ThAt eVeN Be, MoThErFuCkEr?
FuCkIn bLoWs yOuR PaN, dOn't iT JuSt.
Is tHeRe eVeN AnY OtHeR MiRaClE WhAt yOu cAn aLl dO ThAt wItH?
I DoN'T ThInK So.


[Gamzee go home, you're high.]

Comments

[Text]

[dotthedisconnect]

I'm just saying that your reasoning contains a very basic structural flaw. If we break down the argument into variables, where P represents the objective nature of an empirical observation, and a non-objective nature is represented by the negation of that, or ~P, then you are suggesting something like:

If Q then ~P
If Q then P
Therefore, if P then ~P

Where Q is the observation itself.

As you can see, this is very plainly an invalid argument form on the basis of its containing a logical contradiction.

Re: [Text]

[420]

[What is going on here, man, he doesn't know. He's way too high for this.]

P... fOr pIe?

[Text]

[dotthedisconnect]

Actually that would fall under Q, in this case.

[Text]

[420]

YoU LoSt mE BrO.
WhY Is tHe pIe q wHeN It iS WrIt uP WiTh a p?

[Text]

[dotthedisconnect]

The letters are merely representation variables. Q, and therefore "pie," could just as easily be R, or Y, or even P.