Originally Posted by some dude named chad
It seems that before I launch into this letter, I should tell you that most of the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's exegeses are slanted in the same ideological fashion, with large amounts of emotional exaggeration and general ignorance. Unless you share my view that there are money-grubbing megalomaniacs in our midst, there's no need for you to hear me further. Let's be realistic: my earnest denunciation of the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's ruses must have failed to register with it as being legitimate sentiment. To top that off, it wants to pander to our worst fears. It gets better: It actually believes that the most revolting Philistines you'll ever see are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I guess no one's ever told it that it truly believes that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. It is just such anal-retentive megalomania, execrable egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument to canonize jaded big-mouths as nomological emblems of propriety. I don't wish to psychologize here, but I have to laugh when the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument says that it should add insult to injury because "it's the right thing to do". Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but if I didn't think it would shame my name, I wouldn't say that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. Not yet, at least. But we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that it will scar little children's self-image. And to overcome these fears, we must anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good.
No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's ballyhoos are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: The Hydrox vs. Oreos argument does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a vainglorious act, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. The Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's indifference only adds to the problem. No wonder that the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never blend together elitism and classism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. The organization doth protest too much, methinks. The Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's understrappers say that nothing would help society more than for them to attack the very fabric of this nation. Sorry, I don't buy that. From a purely technical point of view, the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.
The Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's sycophants' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. How I pity the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument if I were to be its judge. I would start by notifying the jury that the Hydrox vs. Oreos argument refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. The Hydrox vs. Oreos argument's consistent lack of regard for others will tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions in the coming days, right? Right. The bottom line is that I have put this letter before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.
