If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(22 Words)   It may be old news, but you can't prove that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun, and 10 other ways you're always wrong   (twentytwowords.com) divider line 94
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7096 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jan 2013 at 5:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-10 10:29:38 PM
Actually you could prove if there's a teapot orbiting sol, we're going to need at least one large nuke, and a lot of detection equipment, if done right we should be able to pick up every object in orbit about the sun teapot sized or larger
 
2013-01-10 10:35:23 PM

loonatic112358: Actually you could prove if there's a teapot orbiting sol, we're going to need at least one large nuke, and a lot of detection equipment, if done right we should be able to pick up every object in orbit about the sun teapot sized or larger


Wouldn't it just be cheaper to send a teapot up there, and have the answer without having to do all the research nonsense?
 
2013-01-10 10:40:12 PM

r1niceboy: Wouldn't it just be cheaper to send a teapot up there, and have the answer without having to do all the research nonsense?


there are side benefits to my method, you'll now know where all the asteroids, meteors and other objects ae floating around at.
 
2013-01-10 10:42:58 PM
Wouldn't strawpots technically be baskets? Still DNRTFA
 
2013-01-10 10:45:43 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com

Hey, I'm a little tea pot. Argue with that one.
 
2013-01-10 11:03:04 PM

fredklein: Middle Ground- I often find that the position that allows for the most choice is the correct position to take. The extremes are usually too... extreme.
No one can have guns -------- people can choose to have guns if they want -------- people are forced to have guns
No woman can have an abortion ---------- women can choose to abort ----------- women are forced to have abortions
and so on.


Those examples are... jokes, right?

/ notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-01-10 11:16:57 PM

loonatic112358: r1niceboy: Wouldn't it just be cheaper to send a teapot up there, and have the answer without having to do all the research nonsense?

there are side benefits to my method, you'll now know where all the asteroids, meteors and other objects ae floating around at.


What, and spoil the surprise? That's a bit dull!
 
2013-01-10 11:44:48 PM

I can't get the cap off!: fredklein:
The slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy if you can show how you got from A to Z. It's also not a slippery slope fallacy to say "Completing Step A (a small matter, like registering all guns) makes Step Z (a large matter, like confiscating all guns) a LOT easier to complete, so we're gonna be safe and not do Step A at all".

The example is particularly egregious because in some ways it is a reasonable extrapolation.

If marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman (which is a stupid idea to begin with) than logically we should expand it to any two consenting adults, and likely beyond limiting it to only two people.


Why not?

And I have an easy way to do it! The government makes a status called 'Domestic Partnership". A religious "marriage" is one form of Domestic Partnership. Two gays living together is another form. A man and a women living together is another. Two guys and a girl? Another. Etc. Basically, any group of people who wants to can apply for Domestic Partnership status. Domestic partners are, basically, legally married, and get all the rights and privileges thereof.

BUT, they aren't actually "married". Thus, the religious people can feel good that 'them heathens can't get "married"', and the Domestic Partners can feel good because, well, they basically are married, in all but name.


tl:dr- make "marriage" a subset of a category called Domestic Partnership, which is basically legal marriage. Let the Fundies feel satisfied that gays can't "marry", while gays are getting all the same perks as marriage.
 
2013-01-10 11:50:59 PM

rohar: Turns out there was a bug in the math that would cause a memory leak if the pipes weren't adjusted a couple pixles off every so often, so that explained the damned teapot. I was thrilled! I called the customer back and explained it. The response was "ok, so why a teapot?".


To catch the drip from the leaky pipes? A teapot seems entirely logical....
 
2013-01-10 11:51:30 PM

fredklein: And I have an easy way to do it! The government makes a status called 'Domestic Partnership". A religious "marriage" is one form of Domestic Partnership. Two gays living together is another form. A man and a women living together is another. Two guys and a girl? Another. Etc. Basically, any group of people who wants to can apply for Domestic Partnership status. Domestic partners are, basically, legally married, and get all the rights and privileges thereof.


There are some aspects of a marriage or partnership where polygamy would get messy. The one that screams in my head is "Who gets to make medical decisions for who?". In a duality there's only one person to consult, in a troika there's two and what if they don't agree?
 
2013-01-10 11:53:31 PM

fallingcow: fredklein: Middle Ground- I often find that the position that allows for the most choice is the correct position to take. The extremes are usually too... extreme.
No one can have guns -------- people can choose to have guns if they want -------- people are forced to have guns
No woman can have an abortion ---------- women can choose to abort ----------- women are forced to have abortions
and so on.

Those examples are... jokes, right?


Not at all.

Most political arguments are not between the extremes, but rather between one extreme and the middle position. Take abortion- Some people espouse the extreme position that all women should be forced to NOT have abortions (ie: the "pro-life" crowd). The "other side" of the argument is not the other extreme (that all women should be forced TO have abortion), but rather the middle position: that women should be allowed to choose to have or not have an abortion.

Again with guns: One side takes the extreme position that no one should be able to own guns. The "opposite" side does not take the opposite extreme- that everyone should be forced to have a gun. Instead, they take the middle position that people should be allowed to have or not have guns as they wish.
 
2013-01-10 11:54:46 PM

wildcardjack: fredklein: And I have an easy way to do it! The government makes a status called 'Domestic Partnership". A religious "marriage" is one form of Domestic Partnership. Two gays living together is another form. A man and a women living together is another. Two guys and a girl? Another. Etc. Basically, any group of people who wants to can apply for Domestic Partnership status. Domestic partners are, basically, legally married, and get all the rights and privileges thereof.

There are some aspects of a marriage or partnership where polygamy would get messy. The one that screams in my head is "Who gets to make medical decisions for who?". In a duality there's only one person to consult, in a troika there's two and what if they don't agree?


This is a thread about important things like interplanetary beverage dispensers, so stay on topic!
 
2013-01-11 12:07:19 AM

wildcardjack: There are some aspects of a marriage or partnership where polygamy would get messy. The one that screams in my head is "Who gets to make medical decisions for who?". In a duality there's only one person to consult, in a troika there's two and what if they don't agree?


Firstly even now there are cases where, say, a man is in a coma, and his mother says 'keep him alive', while the wife says 'pull the plug', and it becomes a huge legal mess. (Or kid in coma, dad says one thing, mom another.)

I would suggest that anyone who wants to join such a relationship make it clear to the others what their wishes are. If 'A' makes it clear that they don't want, say, to be kept on Life Support machines, then 'B' and 'C' would both know this, and there would be no conflict. Please note- it's the same for traditional marriages- make sure your partner knows your wishes. Also, there are ways to give a person Power of Attorney to handle your affairs if you become incapacitated. 'A' would simply choose to do that with the partner he trusts most. (Of course, if 'A' simply was careful about who he entered into a relationship with, this would be avoided, as he would trust both to honor his wishes.)
 
2013-01-11 12:07:19 AM
Oh Fark. Why is it always when I'm bored as hell that no new links are greened?
 
2013-01-11 12:10:09 AM

r1niceboy: This is a thread about important things like interplanetary beverage dispensers, so stay on topic!


upload.wikimedia.org

www.courier-journal.com
 
2013-01-11 12:13:04 AM

WelldeadLink: lokisbong: According to the argument the tea pot is supposed to be orbiting between earth and mars though.

Dear President Obama...


What the fark does our president have to do with anything discussed in this thread?
 
2013-01-11 12:22:09 AM
Really not news for us Philosophy majors.

/double-major with Business FTW
 
2013-01-11 12:22:29 AM
fredklein: While it is true that on the next spin of the roulette wheel both black and red have a 50/50 chance of coming up (if you ignore 0 and 00), it's also true that all runs of one color or the other are finite, and eventually the other color WILL come up.

If the first part is true, the bolded part is technically wrong.

/ Which is the best kind of wrong
// DUCY
 
2013-01-11 12:34:05 AM

fredklein: Most political arguments are not between the extremes, but rather between one extreme and the middle position. Take abortion- Some people espouse the extreme position that all women should be forced to NOT have abortions (ie: the "pro-life" crowd). The "other side" of the argument is not the other extreme (that all women should be forced TO have abortion), but rather the middle position: that women should be allowed to choose to have or not have an abortion.


Is this your own observation, or something you read/heard somewhere?
 
2013-01-11 12:40:14 AM
Here's a fun scenario...

Start off talking a blatant Black / White fallacy, then accuse the person who calls you on it of going with a Middle Ground fallacy.

Fun with logical fallacies... Great stuff for dinner conversations.
 
2013-01-11 12:40:21 AM
#11 - Rephrasing your position as a negative does not absolve you from having to substantiate it.
 
2013-01-11 12:48:18 AM

Victoly: fredklein: While it is true that on the next spin of the roulette wheel both black and red have a 50/50 chance of coming up (if you ignore 0 and 00), it's also true that all runs of one color or the other are finite, and eventually the other color WILL come up.

If the first part is true, the bolded part is technically wrong.

Um, yes and no. Technically, the chances of Bill Gates dancing naked out of the back of a Free Candy van and handing me every single winning lottery ticket from every State lottery game this week, then being beamed up into an alien mothership is greater than zero. But it's close enough to zero that i feel confident enough to call it zero.

Yes, there are runs of one color or the other. The longest being 26 blacks in a row in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913, if I recall correctly. But, in the end, every Black streak ends with a Red, and every Red streak ends with a Black.
 
2013-01-11 12:53:46 AM

fallingcow: fredklein: Most political arguments are not between the extremes, but rather between one extreme and the middle position. Take abortion- Some people espouse the extreme position that all women should be forced to NOT have abortions (ie: the "pro-life" crowd). The "other side" of the argument is not the other extreme (that all women should be forced TO have abortion), but rather the middle position: that women should be allowed to choose to have or not have an abortion.

Is this your own observation, or something you read/heard somewhere?


My own.

In general, I have found, as I mentioned before, that the solution that allows the most choice is usually the best one.
 
2013-01-11 01:07:34 AM

r1niceboy: This is a thread about important things like interplanetary beverage dispensers, so stay on topic!


But the problem is, the drinks they dispense always taste almost, but not entirely, unlike tea. :(

/share and enjoy
 
2013-01-11 01:30:11 AM
fredklein:

Most political arguments are not between the extremes, but rather between one extreme and the middle position. Take abortion- Some people espouse the extreme position that all women should be forced to NOT have abortions (ie: the "pro-life" crowd). The "other side" of the argument is not the other extreme (that all women should be forced TO have abortion), but rather the middle position: that women should be allowed to choose to have or not have an abortion.

Again with guns: One side takes the extreme position that no one should be able to own guns. The "opposite" side does not take the opposite extreme- that everyone should be forced to have a gun. Instead, they take the middle position that people should be allowed to have or not have guns as they wish.

I see we have another lefty here who wants to try and convince people his ideas are the 'middle ground'. I'm sorry that you think it's OK if our constitutional freedoms should be trampled upon, but I don't. Some of us don't want this country to become a fascist police state, that you very much. Not that I should really need to argue with someone who thinks murdering your child and your spouse is a reasonable discussion point, but listen to how ridiculous you sound: 'One side believes everyone should be FORCED to have guns, the other side believes that everyone should be FORCED not to have guns'. Yeah, those are really logical opposites. Do you realize how absurd that is, or are you totally blind to it?

Or are you really trying to convince people you're some sort of unbiased observer? I'd challenge you to show that 1. This is your only Fark account, and 2. That you always post unbiased, helpful information, and never actually do any shilling for liberal causes, but I know you can't, so I won't waste my time. Of course, the past dozen or so times I've had to expose people for this garbage no one has dared to challenge me on it, so maybe I'm due.

Look, you either have an opinion about politics, or you don't. If you didn't, then you wouldn't be here, so I'm guessing that you do. And the people who like to 'pretend' to be everyone's helper are always Liberals, because that's what Liberals do: They dress up their rhetoric in pseudo-rational elitism, disguised as bringing the 'truth' to the argument.

...well, maybe the truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

11/11
 
2013-01-11 01:33:30 AM
Don't all teapots that we know of orbit the sun in a manner of speaking?
 
2013-01-11 01:40:02 AM
If elected President of these United States, I promise that our great nation will be the first to launch a teapot out of our solar system on a mission of interplanetary peace
 
2013-01-11 01:50:15 AM
 
2013-01-11 01:50:46 AM

rohar: LordOfThePings: [i.techrepublic.com.com image 620x465]

csb:
Once upon a time I worked as a tech lead in what became the PSS division of Microsoft. A customer called me asking why the teapot kept showing up in that screen saver. I spent 3 weeks tracking down the sonofabiatch programmer that put it there. Turns out there was a bug in the math that would cause a memory leak if the pipes weren't adjusted a couple pixles off every so often, so that explained the damned teapot. I was thrilled! I called the customer back and explained it. The response was "ok, so why a teapot?". After 3 weeks of research on this silly issue, I was in no mood. First and last time I ever cursed at a customer.
/csb


Was it this teapot?
 
2013-01-11 03:15:07 AM

MrEricSir: Spock has a logical phallus.


Logical Phallus, band name!
 
2013-01-11 07:53:06 AM

Ishkur: xria: "Circular reasoning" is a better name for "begging the question" because circular reasoning is a better name.

So that begs the question: Does raising the question about begging the question actually raise the question about whether it's begging it?


+1
 
2013-01-11 08:18:59 AM

Virtuoso80: listen to how ridiculous you sound: 'One side believes everyone should be FORCED to have guns, the other side believes that everyone should be FORCED not to have guns'. Yeah, those are really logical opposites.


Yes, they are. "All X are Y" and "No X are Y" are opposites. "Some X are Y" is the middle position.

"All people are armed" and "no people are armed" are opposites. "Some people are armed" is the middle position.

I'm sorry that you think it's OK if our constitutional freedoms should be trampled upon, but I don't. Some of us don't want this country to become a fascist police state, that you very much.

You really haven't look at my posts, have you?
 
2013-01-11 09:03:30 AM
ALL TEAPOST ORBIT THE SUN, DUMASSES!
 
2013-01-11 09:04:06 AM
SEE WHAT i DID THERE?
 
2013-01-11 09:05:43 AM

RPG_Guy: Don't all teapots that we know of orbit the sun in a manner of speaking?


they do. sorry.
missed your post.
 
2013-01-11 09:51:39 AM

Virtuoso80: I see we have another lefty here who wants to try and convince people his ideas are the 'middle ground'.


"People should be allowed to have or not have guns as they wish" is a "lefty" position?
 
2013-01-11 10:20:02 AM

r1niceboy: loonatic112358: r1niceboy: Wouldn't it just be cheaper to send a teapot up there, and have the answer without having to do all the research nonsense?

there are side benefits to my method, you'll now know where all the asteroids, meteors and other objects ae floating around at.

What, and spoil the surprise? That's a bit dull!


Hey, once we know where they are, it doesn't mean we have to tell the public at large. We could uh say we need more funding to pinpoint the objects trajectory and plot potential paths of peril for the planet
 
2013-01-11 10:23:16 AM
you know, where rendering this teapot argument down to the final bits. I hope there's a resolution at some point that we can all visualize.

/don't get it, see a prior comment
 
2013-01-11 02:46:53 PM
Note to self: Don't tap the glass.
 
2013-01-11 03:30:51 PM
cdn.twentytwowords.com

Hmmm

lordargent.com
 
2013-01-11 03:33:40 PM
fredklein: The slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy if you can show how you got from A to Z

If you can show the steps you took to get from A to Z, then it's not a slippery slope, it's a staircase.

The slippery slope is when you get fro A to Z with no steps in between ... in a light drizzle.
 
2013-01-11 03:47:07 PM

lordargent: fredklein: The slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy if you can show how you got from A to Z

If you can show the steps you took to get from A to Z, then it's not a slippery slope, it's a staircase.

The slippery slope is when you get fro A to Z with no steps in between ... in a light drizzle.


Slippery slopes exist. Wouldn't rulings such as Citizen's United infer that?
 
2013-01-12 02:34:33 AM

fredklein: Virtuoso80: listen to how ridiculous you sound: 'One side believes everyone should be FORCED to have guns, the other side believes that everyone should be FORCED not to have guns'. Yeah, those are really logical opposites.

Yes, they are. "All X are Y" and "No X are Y" are opposites. "Some X are Y" is the middle position.

"All people are armed" and "no people are armed" are opposites. "Some people are armed" is the middle position.

I'm sorry that you think it's OK if our constitutional freedoms should be trampled upon, but I don't. Some of us don't want this country to become a fascist police state, that you very much.

You really haven't look at my posts, have you?


Thunderboy: Virtuoso80: I see we have another lefty here who wants to try and convince people his ideas are the 'middle ground'.

"People should be allowed to have or not have guns as they wish" is a "lefty" position?


I thought I telegraphed the trolling pretty well, but I guess not: My post was intended as pure nonsense, using all 11 logical fallacies stated in the article, in order. Hence the '11/11' at the end.
 
2013-01-12 03:13:30 PM

Virtuoso80: fredklein: Virtuoso80: listen to how ridiculous you sound: 'One side believes everyone should be FORCED to have guns, the other side believes that everyone should be FORCED not to have guns'. Yeah, those are really logical opposites.

Yes, they are. "All X are Y" and "No X are Y" are opposites. "Some X are Y" is the middle position.

"All people are armed" and "no people are armed" are opposites. "Some people are armed" is the middle position.

I'm sorry that you think it's OK if our constitutional freedoms should be trampled upon, but I don't. Some of us don't want this country to become a fascist police state, that you very much.

You really haven't look at my posts, have you?

Thunderboy: Virtuoso80: I see we have another lefty here who wants to try and convince people his ideas are the 'middle ground'.

"People should be allowed to have or not have guns as they wish" is a "lefty" position?

I thought I telegraphed the trolling pretty well, but I guess not: My post was intended as pure nonsense, using all 11 logical fallacies stated in the article, in order. Hence the '11/11' at the end.


I guess it doesn't translate as well when I'm Farking from my phone while...enjoying the fruits of the flu. Well done, then.
 
Displayed 44 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report