Trying to understand my wordy friend

Can you guys help me understand what shes getting at? Especially the last part about the eye glimmering lol...This is in response to my statement that 'there is no human nature but breathing, blinking, etc.'

"What about art? Art has been deficient in our grade schools sections and as an American thinker, I think that Gewashcen(ambigous shapes y subtetil(subtility), the rule of nature that states, "There are so lines in nature,. There is only shade and the gradian of shade." is what is missing in art, especially since modern art of starchitecture(CAD program) is in fact less rectangular, and so less masculine. The rule of no lines in nature is especially true perhaps not in an average college classroom, but because when one sketeches and looks at the reference, the drawing arm, presumptively the right hand, is going to only sketch the calculated portion the eye mentions glimmering on the reference, but with yet no more exxageration than no change in percentile change in size stretching of the actual drawing rendered on the side NOT looked at mainly while drawing."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bcF48z6TVf4
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Your "friend" is just bombarding you with out of context nonsense.

This entire paragraph makes little to no sense.

you both sound like gay nerds

shes always like this, every time she speaks or types lol. Another example...she posted this as a "caption" to her coverphoto

"The role of the pacifist is to not feel anger if someone accuses you of a bad act or a sin of which you actually did not commit. Because you know that you didn't do it, your consciousness is clear and indignation if futile communication with the poor in mind. It seems that now is the objective time of the witches in mysticism revival unfortunately, so that I can relate to a stereotyped victim that while I rode my bike, screamed at me, "I am not a gangster." And so I think their their is an omniscient perhaps spell of the victims in mass value even that has value for social redemption. Perhaps this social redemption is of the kind where, because I know that when entering into discourse, one may face a neurosis that dispossesses, delusions, and turns one's head into a weak cat head, then I know that I can also get my IQ amplified from glory of the moral saint. If I know that my teacher showed us how marijuana in evil for brain development, and I consciously did not drink or smoke marijuana for all of my high school term, nor did I have straight sex in high school, then I also know that because someone who had visual prejudice against my style when I was at the beginning of college, can redeem my IQ to higher it momentarily in performance, because my philosophy classes are more rigorous than his fashion courses, and so he thought I smoked marijuana, which I let go as untrue at the time. But now that I can juxtapose my friend, a female who did smoke marijuana in her high school term, who told me that it made her memory messed up, I can congratulate myself for my good deed of taking care of my brain, so that belief in the brain performance is higher in value than conduct now, which will stay moderate of course, even if this means that the person who stereotyped me was tricked by me is used be me as a mnemonic device."

Your friend is pretentious.

What country are you from?

That whole response, except maybe the first question, has nothing to do with what you said.
Tell her you're not as smart as her and ask her to explain what she means in plain English. If she can't you know she is a pseud, and is probably spouting something she read out of context or something like that. At this point you can keep it to yourself and know to take what she says with a grain of salt, or you can call her out on it (depends how good of friends you are and how smart you are).
If she does explain it in plain English, maybe she's smarter than you and I and it just went over our heads the first time.

Your friend is taking a weak argument and attempting to make it seem strong by obscuring the meaning.

Let's see...

What your friend is saying is what I was thinking at about age 8 while watching cartoons: "Why does everything on these shows have an outline? My house doesn't have an outline, and neither do I!" The whole "glimmering in the eye" bit is saying that while nothing has a naturally occurring outline, we do see things in such a way that DRAWING an outline to show a discrete border is more convenient than the alternative. However, as "an American thinker" (I could not come up with a more pretentious self-description if I tried) she thinks that the way art has been produced since the stone age is silly and should be avoided. This whole thing could be reduced to half the length for more clarity.

This whole "paragraph" is grammatically incorrect and covers... three unrelated topics, by my count, and segways into a fourth. Ah... Don't get mad if you're falsely accused, people believe that magic is real and so do I, and I used to think that marijuana was bad for the brain so I avoided it, and it turns out I was right.

Your friend has a high opinion of herself, but needs to learn some humility.

This is why i asked where they are from. If she does not really speak English, thats what thoughts badly written down look like.
All and all intelligent people should be able to say things more understandable.

Here's her review of Batman vs Superman

>Affleck's remark, "I'm real when it's useful," at first sight adheres to the postmodern solipsistic and relativistic modes. This is confirmed by Terrio when questioned about his research for Justice League, which included "red- and blueshifts in physics". However, on further inspection, Affleck's comment simultaneously reinspects Husserl's and Wittgenstein's "form of life". This invariably leads to a more pragmatic worldview, as Pierce declares "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object."
>Affleck further confirms the pragmatic totality when approaching Miller and Momoa:
>"So you're fast."
>"You can talk to fish."
>Reality as it operates in Snyder films, isn't subservient to language, they work in tandem. This leads as back to Eastern philosophy, the Hinduist Guru Mantra becomes another mythopoetical jigsaw piece in the totality of Justice League. As Brody succintly observed, "Even at his most pedestrian or bombastic, Snyder makes a far more engaging film than Christopher Nolan (an executive producer of “Batman v Superman”) ever did—because Nolan presumes to know and to show, whereas Snyder wants to see. Even his slender philosophical world seems like he’s discovering it, not delivering it."