Claim for Thought.

Oh folly that is the humanity of all who for purpose, idolatry, or cause place themselves in this status.

I live in a society where anger is the cup purchased at the local coffee store; to think of this cup of anger being overpriced really is the ultimate of insults.

I think, therefore a certain right must be bestowed upon the rhetoric I attempt to so elusively bestow upon everyone who reads the comments section of any place I visit.

What is this bond people have created with futility? What is the nature of the auspices without fervor we portray in chat rooms, blogs, or other severely-lacking-scrutiny places of writing?

To converse was once to socialize. To socialize today seldom means being part of a social gathering or institution. Socializing today means being the means of a ridicule, being the point where falsehoods fall, the ears of opinionated someones whom now that in fallen eyes failed to derive the satisfaction of a reply by form or prose now takes unto the streets in order to vociferate the most obnoxious of flattery of their ego; seldom having any truth to what is portrayed, and worse yet denoting the failure to understand the modus operandi of civility. To prostrate one's feet upon the ground where others with real value, studious concern, and proven research matters, only to attempt to besmirch their findings through flattery of nonsensical platitudes conceived out of the lack of tact in public mediums is just common today.

Let us embark in a journey to the center of the Earth's core by way of entering a fissure on the ground would be something worth the writings of Jules Verne, but in today's society merely talking about the issue -as if it were a real thing to begin with- immediately brings about a war of factions where some with real knowledge aid in the creation of the stupefaction that becomes the cannon and dogma of a new group that usurps the avant-garde's real attempts to bring forth new thought, by through delusional prose indicate the findings and proof of the illiterate or in the worse case the brute aiding the former.

I attest and hereby proclaim a type of decadence which in prowess battles all manner of scientific endeavor. There is no charismatic attempt to clearly state matters in a way that can be proven through rigorous fervor. This brings us to the I think, therefore it must be true gallantry of the ones whom with agile fingers smirk while wily corroding the goodness that should exist in any public encounter by means of exemplarism, or rather the opposite of in terms of what is discussed, not what is.

What is the solicitude with scientific endeavor? Whereas to err is in the nature of thinking beings, the matter of straying from the vicissitudes that allow for human thinking growth are all but annihilated with every utterance. Listening as a matter of learning of dangers that may lurk nearby has been a human quality for a long time, as is using other senses to defend our livelihood from the dangers that exist in our vicinity. That candidly explains the nature of the thinking animal whom now aided by the very nature that allows us to love, to endanger others with their articulations of disagreement as if they are the fact from which knowledge is based upon; could not be more dangerous.

Furthermore, we allow the stated to offend, worse yet we become complicit by regurgitating the matter in our own way thus giving truth to our fellow family or friends on a matter than should have never left the area where with little concern it was first chastised by way of changing the known for this hypocrite notion that is our uncensored thought.

Challenge yourself not to answer, repeat, or otherwise promote a matter without the experience of education and instead seek to learn about the truth in what has become more than a passing thought before further increasing the vexation that is seeing the same matter over and over where you go. The privacy that is our thoughts should never exist unless to attempt to instead of stating claims seek for it to be provable to whatever degree possible.

I cannot argue that -as Russell's Teapot posits- things are as they are. The miracle that is discovery could not be achieved without the realities that come from natural thought. Hence my previous statement that should such a thought manifest, experts should be sought, testing should ensue, and from the fruitful labor of understanding, once the matter has been scrutinized, then and only then can we pose a claim.

To speak without thinking is as swimming without the knowledge with which to do so.

I challenge you to hold your thoughts hostage until such a time where you can properly analyze or through serious pondering of available studied material, the matter before further critically hampering our declining intellectual fathom of any one thing.

I believe turns into the inexcusable fantasy that is proclaiming without proof the sense of reality that exists only in conversation, thought, myth, and as such it should be taboo.

To speak with eloquence as the human  dictionary of eventualities dictated by choice is different than the orator whom with knowledge -however little- of a subject postulates and through discourse thwarts a matter that has been determined as the subject of discussion.

Opinion for opinion's sake is as useless as it is baseless. An opinion, when challenged by the cannon, stands as being nothing more than a thought without the truth inasmuch as truth is knowledge derived from taught and clearly stated findings of the scientific community. What is the truth we may ask a doctor before surgery, and they'll vigorously state through the arduous task of reviewing volumes of information in their memory, the matter with detail. What is your opinion we may ask the doctor and they will answer with the dignity allowed them through the Hippocratic Oath what they believe based on previous examples, statistics, or experience and while good the opinion it will lack the veracity of the truth; because experience applies only to that moment in time, statistics measure individual cases lumped into a number, and ultimately all measure into what we know as a gesture of kindness.

As for banter in scenarios where a serious topic is being discussed, I entertain the idea that any subject without an open mind is bound for failure.

As for science being wrong in the past, there is no patsy or scheme dethroned, for when science is found to be flawed it is also made stronger with the new scientific finding.

Gullible is the impatient person whom argues against the stated thought without realizing the validity or lack thereof in the argued.

As such, when asking for the truth, the palpable recognition of facts is apparent and thus can be considered. Only when the truth is exploited can we assert as to what the feasibility of any licit statement may carry; the veracity which we claim for thought.