teknix said:

Anything is something. Whether or not it is profound or useful is the question.

---

Useful to who? You're not the only part of creation an opinion.

teknix said:

Rationale is what separates men from chimps.

---

Really? When did we become rational and chimps irrational? 

Quote:

METAPHYSICS.

a. Reality. The universe is composed of two ultimate entities, spirit or form and materiality or matter. All things are reducible to one or other of these basic entities.
b. The Nature of Man. Man is a rational animal. He is animal in his possession of a body With its physical needs and appetites. He is rational because he has a soul. The active element of the soul is part of the universal principle of life. This element is immortal. The passive element of the soul is the individual personality, with memories and thoughts relating to the experiences of life. This passive element ceases to exist with death. The soul and body form a necessary whole for the existence of the organism. The implications of this theory are:
 

(1) Destiny. Man has no eternal destiny. He ceases to exist as an individual personality at death.
(2) Nature. The highest faculty in man is his spiritual nature. Man acts according to his nature when he subordinates his physical appetites to reason.
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/aristotle.html

---

Icelander said:

I know this for a fact.  As I am part of creation and so a reflection of creation itself I feel shame and embarrassment for being such a stoopid, violent, and silly creation.  So I guess that's somethin.

---

teknix said:

They don't really rationalize. See Aristotle:

"Rational animal is a classical definition of man.[1] Though it is often attributed to first appearing as a definition in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Aristotle does not define it here. In the Nicomachean Ethics I.13, Aristotle states that the human being has a rational principle.
"

Quote:

METAPHYSICS.

a. Reality. The universe is composed of two ultimate entities, spirit or form and materiality or matter. All things are reducible to one or other of these basic entities.
b. The Nature of Man. Man is a rational animal. He is animal in his possession of a body With its physical needs and appetites. He is rational because he has a soul. The active element of the soul is part of the universal principle of life. This element is immortal. The passive element of the soul is the individual personality, with memories and thoughts relating to the experiences of life. This passive element ceases to exist with death. The soul and body form a necessary whole for the existence of the organism. The implications of this theory are:
 

(1) Destiny. Man has no eternal destiny. He ceases to exist as an individual personality at death.
(2) Nature. The highest faculty in man is his spiritual nature. Man acts according to his nature when he subordinates his physical appetites to reason.
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/aee501/aristotle.html

---

---

Man is rational because he has a soul? That's not rational as there is no evidence of a soul.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=are+chimps+rational&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=can+chimps+be+rational&oq=can+chimps+be+rational&gs_l=serp.3...171641.183802.0.184589.42.35.2.3.3.5.999.3694.28j6j6-1.35.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5nwad8_ZFGY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=1685b39da56ca7a5&biw=1259&bih=636

swimmingfast said:

Icelander said:

I know this for a fact.  As I am part of creation and so a reflection of creation itself I feel shame and embarrassment for being such a stoopid, violent, and silly creation.  So I guess that's somethin.

---

So would you agree that creation is everything we can personify it with?

---

ClosedEyeCigarette said:

A goofy goober entails someone that is both:

a.) Goofy.

and

b.) A goober.

These two characteristics of any individual can relate to every aspect of said individual and can be used to explain said individuals actions, thus painting a complete and totally perfect picture of the individual in question.

Why did the individual do x? He's goofy.

Why did the individual do y? He's a goober.

What makes the individual so ___?  That would be his inherently goofy nature.

---

Now you have to define goofy and goober while avoiding creating an ad hominem, gl with that. I honestly don't see any way around the assertion being a composition fallacy, considering the auxilary hypothesis is that we are all creation. You are going to be singling out particular attributes either way. Unless you can get the definition of goofy and goober to encompass all creation in totality.