WHO IS YOUR DADDY AND WHAT DOES HE DO?
The following is a conversation between Arnold Schwartz.
and a random motel receptionist. Arnold's words are
recorded from the movie 'Kindergarden Cop'.
C: "Hello, this is the Gator Lodge, how may I help you?"
A: "Good morning"
C: "Good morning..."
A: "I am going to ask u some questions, and u are going
to answer them immediately"
C: "ok"
A: "Whos is your daddy and what does he do?"
C: "who?"
A: "who is your daddy?"
C: "Listen, you've reached reception and..."
A: "who is this?"
C: "Who is THIS?"
A: "This is detective John Kimbel; listen to me you
idiot, I'm a police officer"
C: "If you're a police officer, why don't you come down
here and talk to me - you idiot"
A: "Why you bitch..."
C: I don't know who your daddy is and you..."
A: "STOP IT"
C: "You stop it you big idiot"
A: "STOP IT"
C: *click*
It goes something like that (I only listened to it 3 times)
but u get the idea. So that's where it became funny. WHO
IS YOUR DADDY AND WHAT DOES HE DO? Although, I thought,
when someone said, "Whos your daddy?", it was a claim to
them being your daddy...like "whos the man" means
"I'm the man and u have to admit it". It's like saying u
fucked their mother and hence own them. That seems to be
the more logical reason for saying "whos your daddy?" but
for historical reasons, should we instead regard this saying
as a "testament" to the shown dialogue? Perhaps. But consider
what Schwinger once said of supercedence of historical
imperatives over the subversive nature of aliterative devices:
Although in nature itself we can lend our
own will to the testament of the past,
perhaps it is better to instead indulge in
the allusion of word whence from where
testament arose.[7]
It is indeed, notwithstanding of prudence in none but the most
eviscerating of cases, of more than catagorical interest to
"engender" our diatribe than to devolve into a baseless
acrimony under which smitten statements remain such. By the
very subversive tone of "whos your daddy", we can undulate
under our principled bellows of justice and all that is right
that which is sought by allusion over and to. "whos your
daddy"; to say it is to beckon a self-righteous claim of
ownership over an opponent, or perhaps by restoring the
historical imperative of the remark we can invoke a feeling
of control over them - yes, I instead could instill them with
the feeling that I am Arnold and our opposition is akin to
the conversation. But is such folly? Could they not reply
"who?" and then allude to the illusion of opposition by which
I smite? Would that not imperile my directive to trample
their esteem by equating me with a FALSE opponent in a staged
conversation? And what if I mean to stake ownership over them, as
I would by saying, "I ownz j00"? To each his own. Grandpa.
