Is it normal for an anti-philosopher to be believable?

It can do. You're all missing the point: knowledge of everyday life. I advise that supposing you're on the bus, do the opposite of what you hear, example, read a book on the bus- intelligence goes a long way.

Does this look like a joke? There's no punchline, the intellectual doesn't listen to the unlearned (pretty smart).

What 'this' is is anti-philosophy, perfectly easy to understand. Ono, I doubt that you lost anything, you "found" the "answer" to your "self". Cool, to be excessively specific and honest, your ground is nothing, a word doesn't capture the meaning of what you say, words are just words, means nothing. However, show your brother a paper with science on it (no excuses), science is a nice honesty, brutally "honest" is untrue: it has no science. It's not evidence, being mean proves that the fool prefers pessimism. Take it laid back, baby, prefer optimism, man! Books on the pursuit of happiness should unscramble the emotional circuits, you'll find your answer, may I advise "Hotheads" by Stephen Pinker, one needs happiness, another one, "The Pursuit of Happyness" is the ultimate sugary film of real intellect of the feeling, watch it. And come back when any of you saw a therapist.

Let's anti-philosophise: my IQ's 101, and I spend a lot of time learning on the computer, and reading lots of books. The truth is anti-intellectualism which I am detecting is thrice missing the point: knowledge of everyday life (hmmm), irrational science, and intellectual stuff which any person can believe: 1. If your theory's not sound you have no ground for irrationalism. 2. If it's not sound, you have no ground for truth of "reality". 3. It has to be exact, from real life, i.e. nature's not something inside the heads of all you guys. 4. You don't generalise. and 5. a healthy cynicism/scepticism, and without a method, but with that which comes naturally: you need convincing scientific, not pseudoscientific evidence to make people believe you, based on fact. And no anti-philosopher likes any anti-intellectual, you're usually a bunch of children, no offence (not the one who said "arse"). However, cynicism is when you doubt sincerity, i.e. you're not enjoying science, you're trashing knowledge, plus another reality is that yes, I dislike pleasure, but I'm no fool, it wouldn't be a pleasure 1. since this which I wrote isn't easy, it requires detection and knowing, and 2. it wouldn't be a pleasure to eat crap food from McDonald's (I don't mean an Angus, or a Big Mac, but trashy food like plain ice cream in a cheap cone or a non-luxurious biscuit). Well done, so worship my IQ (101).

Hooroo, I've got what I needed.

Antidisestablishmentism isn't a word, check a dictionary with 2 million words. Besides, it means you're against the disestablishment, so people want an establishment so it's rebelling against rebellion (you're not really rebelling), the word contradicts itself, and a "Bot" isn't a problem, a "bot" isn't anything like a robot. Case two: John Howard boiled down to the same thing: i.e. the reality of politics, and the new Prime Minister (a woman) is again with political science, which I believe is based on non-whimsical facts using reason not passion. Another point, nerds are cool, baby! Drinking coffee, and brushing your teeth can even be analysed if you listen to your left brain, overanalysation goes a long way. Another case which I look for clues for: I'm trying to analyse why you think this ridiculous theory of yours (all of you). Instead of debating against everyone else and helping moi, you're all agreeing with each other. I beg to differ from all of you: a. you're not helping, b. you need to tell some worker what your problem is, c. I disagree that what I think means nothing, what I think means I'm an ex-student of philosophy, ex, instead of believing in idealism, I believe the real world is waking up and you're not plugged in a computer, the digitisation's all a dream: conclusion, hence I'm "coded", this is a virtual reality, and a self-respecting student will tell you that, not my family though, I disobey my mother and do the smart thing, now I can rebel, because the rebellion makes perfect sense- if you analyse normal: scientific, and if you contradict everyone else, your thinking makes perfect sense. Ciao! Enjoy your thinking.

So? Everything has consequences, what are ya tryin' to prove?

I concur. Your oration is unequivocally and veraciously stupendous. Well done for putting this braggart in his place.

What, like is your fragmented, coded consciousness stored on a server in Australia? Your patterns of thought (evident in your type) indicate one of two things:

1. Schizophrenia (or hallucinogenic drug use, in which the brain functions not dissimilar to a schizophrenic)
2. Advanced primitive AI (what I mean to say is, you sound like a bot...like the ones that proclaim we can change our penis size if we only click on a certain link).

If we're gonna bust out the Greek Classics of Philosophy, I hereby state that I'm a Cynic of the school of Diogenes, and you sir/madam/robot are a fucking idiot (that is said under the auspices of Cynical Boolean Logic).