>The Enlightenment
Shit midwits like
Anthony Cooper
James Cruz
Tarantino or Kubrick as their favorite director
Noah Perez
he is so cute
Levi Mitchell
Chomsky
Harold Bloom
Marx
Zizek
Peterson
Shapiro
Molyneux
Nicholas Adams
Real patricians prefer John Ford (if we're talking about American directors)
Michael Hill
Why are metalhead niggers so based?
Better than hood nigger or white person nigger
Brody Ward
Don’t forget monty python
Jayden Hill
This image a metaphor for American gluttony, lust, muttinization and materialism and an inevitable consequence of a state where authority is a product of man and not God.
Jordan Foster
The only based director is pasolini
Michael Lewis
this thread
Henry Johnson
Deleuze
Nicholas Price
Is being a brainlet a better fate than being a midwit? As a midwit I can't help but wonder.
Anthony Thompson
Yes, midwits are smart enough to realize how stupid they really are, but brainlets are blissfully ignorant and live genuinely fulfilling lives, which is more than most can lay claim to
Jaxon Jones
Chr*Stianity
Ryder Green
Aaron Turner
Midwits by definition are opposed to Christianity. There is a U-curve for Christianity. Mostly it's brainlets then it tapers off as it approaches middle-range intelligence, then it increases again with super intelligent people (Langan, Ratzinger). Midwits are almost always materialists, which is why they think they are smart by dismissing it. Thanks for outing yourself, midwit.
Logan Ramirez
That's what I worry about.
What do you think is the best course of action as a midwit? How can a midwit create something of value?
Samuel Turner
is there a larger version of that image?
Eli Perez
>""""""""""""""critiquing"""""""""" the enlightenment*
Matthew Campbell
>"""""""""""""""" critiquing"""""""""""""""" """"""""" critiques""""""""" of the enlightenment
Gabriel Miller
It's not very good. That was the only worthwhile part.
David Turner
Then why must people still defend the enlightenment to this day?
Julian Moore
>Founding Fathers
>Muh Constintution
>The Federalist Papers
>Hume, Voltaire, Locke
>FUCKING LOVING SCIENCE
>Separation of Church and State GOOD
>Vested interest in contemporary politics
>"we don't live in a democracy, we live in a 'representative ""republic""'
>n-no you
Absolutely seething midwit.
Hudson Sullivan
>not sure if I've walked the full x axis or got half way and turned back
Liam Long
>"we don't live in a democracy, we live in a 'representative ""republic""'
Fuck off. It's a good argument and I use it against people in favour of abolishing the electoral college and people complaining about the fact that Hillary got more votes than drumpf.
Sebastian Thomas
Hey, big boy, thanks for proving:
>Vested interest in contemporary politics
Alexander Parker
>PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU MEANS YOU'RE A MIDWIT
Jason Reyes
Kind of yeah
Jack Stewart
Yes.
Henry Taylor
>learning
Owen Watson
Ford's nowhere near consistent enough to be anyone favorite. Watch more than his big 6 and tell me what you think.
Ayden Baker
Hegel
Nolan Mitchell
That's actually correct desu.
Owen Walker
>literally making up fake graphs to make yourself feel better
found the low IQ
Blake Ortiz
A good argument for what? You see, you proved yourself to be an imbecile with your very first sentence, that you just use concepts for simple parroting in simple scenarios for social leverage and you let this slip out on full display. Nonetheless, representative republic with universal suffrage is a democracy where the masses pick the leaders of government, a circus that has led to the deterioration of the very nation that set it up to begin with. The same criticisms of democracy are indeed applicable to a representative republic. To defend it as a valid form of government, already shows you lost ground and conceded to popular consensus as being a barometer for governance, moreover, you are fine with a divided people, and a directionless ad hoc nation.
> and I use it against people in favour of abolishing the electoral college and people complaining about the fact that Hillary got more votes than drumpf.
Ah! This is what the argument is for? Great non-sequitur leap. The fact that you make this connection goes to show your limited midwit brain's processing power. At this point, the fact that an entire nation is torn between two candidates it really doesn't matter does it? Even if you had an excellent candidate, within this limited framework he has at best 8 years, in which the powers of the head of state are severely limited, where there is extreme infighting, where hardly anything will be accomplished, and after his term is up, in another decade, all that work and effort will be undone, just so braindead idiots like you could debate it all over again in the morning. No. I reject this framework. I reject this useless quarreling. In fact, I am quite amused at your post and how you think. Imagine puffing yourself up to relay to other equally inferior minds to pointlessly bifurcate this electoral distinction, just to give a little civics lesson instead of getting to the point of rural vs urban divide and how city culture leads to hivization of mind, culture and person. Even if you could grasp the truth, your city colleagues and suburban socialites would be dearly offended, so no room for polite conversation there.