The people that I worry about are those that really think that the universe is composed of random, chaotic events that just mesh together. Basically, they are the ones that act everyday on the knowledge that they have, making intelligent decisions like "If I step in front of that moving car, it will probably hurt me very badly. Therefore, I will not step in front of the car."
However, despite their obvious loyalty to knowledge, they renounce it as "undependable" since supposedly "the universe has no absolutes". So, the universe is a random, chaotic place, but yet, the hair dryer unexplainably always churns out hot air instead of meat packets or Ameretto liqueur. Isn't that odd? In other words, when the loony says "let's agree to disagree", it basically means "Hey, what are we arguing about? I mean, since there's no real answers, let's bring this pointless conversation to an end." And, in the case of myself being an observer of the loony, it also means to me "Hey, can someone please stick a banana up my ass? I don't know what exactly that would prove, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than what I'm sayin' right now."
Consequently, I find that these people usually use their talents of sophism to become very well-trained lawyers. I imagine that these loonies will eventually bring the courts of this nation to a very ridiculous state, if they haven't already. I can just imagine it...
Lawyer #1: Your honor, I propose to submit this signed contract into the courtroom. This document contains the signature of the defendant immediately after the paragraph which mentions the details of the arrangement which is being argued about today. Clearly, it indicates the agreement by the defendant to the terms laid out on this document.
Lawyer #2: I have no question in my mind that this signature is absolutely the signature of the defendant. I will consent that to the prosecution. However, how do we know that the defendant actually understood the terms laid out in the contract?
Lawyer #1: Your honor, may I be so bold as to point out one fact: that the defendant wrote the terms of the contract himself. And then signed it himself. Being a professional arbitrator, he would know how to do such things well.
Judge: Do you have a counter-argument, Councilor?
Lawyer #2: Of course. As the prosecution has pointed out, the terms of the contract have been written in detail by the defendant. However, these terms of the contract have only been written in English. Can we really tell the intention of the defendant from only words? I mean, can you really capture the human mind in a few concise phrases? I argue that this piece of paper be thrown out on the grounds that no words of any language can ever really tell you the truth since the truth goes beyond human language.
Judge: Hmmm...I don't understand your argument fully, but I can't prove it's wrong. All right, the document will not be allowed as evidence, Councilor.
Lawyer #2: Better yet, since we're using human language right now to communicate and since it's obviously flawed, why are we even attempting to resolve this case? We'll never arrive at a correct resolution due to the imperfect nature of the medium. So, why not just agree to disagree? I move that we dismiss the case altogether.
Judge: Sounds good to me. Case dismissed.
(Lawyer #1 pulls out a revolver and blows his own head off.)
The scary part is that this type of person is usually an aggressive individual who becomes successful...and, in being successful, this person gets the attention of youth and other people looking for a future and some words of advice. And they listen to the loony since it almost makes sense!
So, it should be no mystery to you if you see a Charles Manson of the future being let go due to the court deciding to "agree to disagree" about the definition of "fucking nutball". I think that you and I will know where it came from.
