View Full Version : The Idiots Are Winning: TV Host Doesn't Know if World Is Round or Flat
Ow, this hurts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ACobXN7_p8). I don't watch much (any) daytime TV, but this clip has been popping up all over the place. It hurts to know that people are watching this junk.
Please tell me that this woman is not representative. Please tell me this is a fluke.
Proletariat
09-20-2007, 00:30
Amazing. And Whoopi saying the world is round has anything to do with the theory of evolution.
I thought you liked the flat-earthers. :inquisitive:
I love flat earthers. I want one of my very own to love and pet and dress up like a pony. I think a flat earther would make a great addition to our motley crew of nutballs.
But when you've got a TV host who's watched by millions of bored at-home elderly and such talking about how the world might be flat ... I dunno. That's not-so-good.
Whatever happened to our Royalist? I haven't heard from him in a while.
Gregoshi
09-20-2007, 00:48
How can the Earth be flat if inflation is such a problem? Tell me that! :yes:
I love flat earthers. I want one of my very own to love and pet and dress up like a pony. I think a flat earther would make a great addition to our motley crew of nutballs.
But when you've got a TV host who's watched by millions of bored at-home elderly and such talking about how the world might be flat ... I dunno. That's not-so-good.
Whatever happened to our Royalist? I haven't heard from him in a while.
Oh come on Lemur, no one watches the View. The only reason it exists is for the creation of jaw-droppingly stupid Youtube clips- a task it is very good at. :yes:
CrossLOPER
09-20-2007, 01:38
I love flat earthers. I want one of my very own to love and pet and dress up like a pony. I think a flat earther would make a great addition to our motley crew of nutballs.
You are seeking to add a pet idiot to your retinue?
Papewaio
09-20-2007, 02:15
Surely they need to be educated to become a flat-earther and one that is devout and dogmatic in their belief before they become a backroomer... so this is helping in the evolution er creation er training of one.
Then we can go get an alchemist!
Surely someone can get this woman a globe! Is the world flat?!?!:furious3:
woad&fangs
09-20-2007, 02:28
:freak: Did she say she had a kid!?:freak: There needs to be some sort of common sense test people have to pass before they allowed to :knuddel:.
Question 1.Is the world flat?
A Yes
B NO
C I don't know, I never really thought about it
D Gah!!!
Papewaio
09-20-2007, 02:51
Is the Earth Round though?
Proletariat
09-20-2007, 02:51
Question 1.Is the world flat?
A No
B No
C No
D Learning is for jerks
:no:
CrossLOPER
09-20-2007, 03:35
Question 1.Is the world flat?
A Yes
B NO
C I leik PIE.
D lol wut?
There we go.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-20-2007, 03:51
Ow, this hurts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ACobXN7_p8). I don't watch much (any) daytime TV, but this clip has been popping up all over the place. It hurts to know that people are watching this junk.
Please tell me that this woman is not representative. Please tell me this is a fluke.
Got through 90 seconds or so. Started feeling sorry for Babs. Quit the whole thing as a waste of neurons.
Did she really not know the earth was flat or did her nervous mind go blank? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMHKsPzo5Qo)
I agree with blondie, at least she thinks about her kids.
I mean seriously, whether the world is round or flat doesn't really affect the life of a TV show host. Ok, you'd expect her to know it's flat like we all do, but she isn't necessarily a bad mum even if she thinks it's round, ok?
Oh the earth is round alright in a flat way if you want. Everyone knows Midgard is circular and floats in the migthy sea. How else could the Midgard serpent circumvent Midgard biting his tail? Come on people use logic.
Oh the earth is round alright in a flat way if you want. Everyone knows Midgard is circular and floats in the migthy sea. How else could the Midgard serpent circumvent Midgard biting his tail? Come on people use logic.
:medievalcheers:
I would say that those on that panel of the linked-to video in the OP who believed the Earth was not flat were of equally-questionable and/or lesser intelligence than the flat Earth person; seeing as they were all trying to propagate evolution as fact. Accordingly, I agree with the first half of this thread title.
Mikeus Caesar
09-20-2007, 12:47
20 seconds before the end she said 'internets'. This warrants these people, in my view, as being idiots.
Oh the earth is round alright in a flat way if you want. Everyone knows Midgard is circular and floats in the migthy sea. How else could the Midgard serpent circumvent Midgard biting his tail? Come on people use logic.
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg :yes:
The Celtic Viking
09-20-2007, 13:42
I would say that those on that panel of the linked-to video in the OP who believed the Earth was not flat were of equally-questionable and/or lesser intelligence than the flat Earth person; seeing as they were all trying to propagate evolution as fact.
Are you claiming that evolution is not a fact? If so, perhaps you should be a little more careful when choosing who you call "idiot"... it could backfire, you know. :inquisitive:
Edit: Just to keep things clear, I do not mean that you're an idiot. Please don't take my post that way. :sweatdrop:
Are you claiming that evolution is not a fact?
Well, I'd claim so anyway, it's not called a theory because it's a fact, it's called a theory because it's a theory. Might be a very good and accepted one, but that still doesn't make it a fact.:inquisitive:
You know, in the middle ages, a very good and widely accepted theory was that the world was flat, that didn't make it true, did it?
Vicious Monkey, let's talk simian to prosimian: Navaros is our local Biblical literalist and (naturally) creationist. I think there's another creationist posting, but I can't remember his handle.
I think there's another creationist posting, but I can't remember his handle.
Husar?
I haven't given in to the dark side yet in that regard, though I'm more of the opinion that it might be a mix of both meaning God created evolution. That probably puts me in the idiot field for both creationists and evolutionists but then at least I know I'm special.:clown:
Back in the days before TiVo, 200 channels on cable, a large backlog of DVDs, and MTW, I needed to be coughing up blood before taking a sick day from work. There was nothing worse than being couch-ridden and being subjected to daytime television. I tore up my knee once, and was back at work after one day home. Hurt like crazy, but it was better than being stuck with that crap.
It scares me to think of what happens to people who watch that stuff every day.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-20-2007, 16:46
Husar?
I haven't given in to the dark side yet in that regard, though I'm more of the opinion that it might be a mix of both meaning God created evolution. That probably puts me in the idiot field for both creationists and evolutionists but then at least I know I'm special.:clown:
Probably, but you're not alone. :yes:
HoreTore
09-20-2007, 20:02
Well, I'd claim so anyway, it's not called a theory because it's a fact, it's called a theory because it's a theory. Might be a very good and accepted one, but that still doesn't make it a fact.:inquisitive:
Uh.... You've misunderstood the word "theory". In a scientific sense, it does mean "fact"... Just facts that you can disprove, unlike blind faith...
It scares me to think of what happens to people who watch that stuff every day.
well...after you see that crap for about 3 months your IQ lowers enough that you are eligible to present the program yourself! :laugh4:
and then you too might produce such pearls of wisdom as the earth being flat and all.
The_Mark
09-20-2007, 20:54
Uh.... You've misunderstood the word "theory". In a scientific sense, it does mean "fact"... Just facts that you can disprove, unlike blind faith...
Exactly. Theory is something that has been proven to the best of our abilities, a hypothesis is something we're still uncertain of. At least, that's what theory means in the context of evolution.
My monitor is as flat as the world.
:creep:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-20-2007, 21:21
Uh.... You've misunderstood the word "theory". In a scientific sense, it does mean "fact"... Just facts that you can disprove, unlike blind faith...
Incorrect. Science posits and destroys theories on a regular basis. A theory is NOT a fact.
A "Theory" consists of concepts, set of statements about relationships between these concepts, and basic assumptions. A theory seeks to explain some phenomenon (See Bacharach, 1989, Academy of Management Review, 14, pp.469+).
The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the relationship between present forms of life (data points in direct observation) with past forms of life (data points based on fossil record, etc.) and suggests that the older forms of life mutated into the current forms via a process of gradual genetic alteration and adaptation in response to the larger environment.
To date, no credible scientific evidence disproving this theory has been brought forward, and though the theory has been refined since first posited (formally at least) by Darwin, the basic explanation provided by this theory is presumed correct because it has survived repeated testing and the vast majority of data available fit well within the explanation.
Arguably, you could actually label the Theory of Evolution as a theoretical model, or even a theoretical paradigm, as it subsumes more focused formal theories covering various aspects of the larger subject.
Nevertheless, Theory is not Fact. A "Fact" is a observable/measurable absolute that -- assuming no change in context -- does not change. Theories are attempts to explain the relationships between such Facts.
Should the Theory of Evolution be discovered to be incapable of accurately explaining X,Y, and Z important Facts, it would be discarded and superceded by a new Theory that explains the relationships between these facts as well as those already observed.
Given the entrenched status of the Theory of Evolution, this would probably involve a Kuhnian paradigm shift, with many theories in any number of disciplines being reconsidered.
Einstein's theories regarding energy, mass, and the speed of light which he published at the turn of the 20th evoked just such a shift in physics, superceding the previously "Absolute" ideas of Newton.
The Theory of Evolution is way more than a "guess," but it is not Fact.
Sorry for the rant -- I spent a few years teaching research methods.
HoreTore
09-20-2007, 21:29
Uhm... Yes, that was what I said... "fact that you can disprove", as opposed to "true" facts, ie. those you cannot disprove...
Uhm... Yes, that was what I said... "fact that you can disprove", as opposed to "true" facts, ie. those you cannot disprove...
Well, if you can disprove it it's not a fact.:dizzy2:
The Celtic Viking
09-20-2007, 21:56
Vicious Monkey, let's talk simian to prosimian: Navaros is our local Biblical literalist and (naturally) creationist. I think there's another creationist posting, but I can't remember his handle.
Figured as much. Religious literalists aren't as logical as us tailed ones. So far I've never met any such specimen who believes in ethereal beings, unless you do too, which I would then explain away by you, after all, being a prosimian, and not a true simian like I.
If there were a god, we would dominate the world, not the silly humans.
The Theory of Evolution is way more than a "guess," but it is not Fact.
Really? In school I was told that a fact is a theory that we have not been able to disprove. Since evolution is a theory that no one has been able to disprove to date, I assumed it was a fact based on this explanation that I got. It seems you're saying that it's wrong, and if so I'll enquire about this further next time I see her, to see what she has to say about it. If I learn a new thing, so much the better. :2thumbsup:
Since evolution is a theory that no one has been able to disprove to date, I assumed it was a fact based on this explanation that I got. It seems you're saying that it's wrong, and if so I'll enquire about this further next time I see her, to see what she has to say about it.
Argh, we're tripping over our semantics. Seamus is not saying that the theory of evolution is wrong or right, he's just trying to be crystal-clear about what is a fact versus what is a theory (in the scientific sense).
To be honest, using the scientific method, there isn't any such thing as a "fact." There are good theories, bad theories, and theories that are "so bad they're not even wrong." (Can't remember who said that.) A theory that has been tested, attacked from many angles, and is still standing would be a solid theory. Evolution is one such. It's the foundation of modern biology, among other things.
If you're going to disbelieve evolution, try to be consistent and stop taking antibiotics. No pharmaceuticals for the true believers!
Geoffrey S
09-20-2007, 23:21
Uhm... Yes, that was what I said... "fact that you can disprove", as opposed to "true" facts, ie. those you cannot disprove...
But then it's not a fact. A fact is.
Really? In school I was told that a fact is a theory that we have not been able to disprove. Since evolution is a theory that no one has been able to disprove to date, I assumed it was a fact based on this explanation that I got.
No, that sounds wrong. A simple example:
A fact is that I, Geoffrey S, typed this message. That is and remains a fact. A theory would be that someone posits theories that infact it wasn't me who typed it, but someone else since the style of writing is supposedly inconsistent with my usual style. They won't be able to conclusively prove it, since there are no witnesses to have seen it happen, but if I were to produce a video recording of me typing this message that theory would be instantly disproven.
It's a touchy point, since there are plenty of theories that too many people take as objective, a fact, as witnessed by the cause of this discussion. Sometimes this is minor, sometimes it can have quite major consequences (the world is flat).
You're such an extremist Lemur!
The Celtic Viking
09-20-2007, 23:59
Argh, we're tripping over our semantics. Seamus is not saying that the theory of evolution is wrong or right, he's just trying to be crystal-clear about what is a fact versus what is a theory (in the scientific sense).
Actually, no, you're just misunderstanding me. I simply meant that according to what Seamus said, the explanation I got for what a fact is was wrong. Obviously, I wasn't clear enough on this. My bad. :shame:
No, that sounds wrong. A simple example:
A fact is that I, Geoffrey S, typed this message. That is and remains a fact. A theory would be that someone posits theories that infact it wasn't me who typed it, but someone else since the style of writing is supposedly inconsistent with my usual style. They won't be able to conclusively prove it, since there are no witnesses to have seen it happen, but if I were to produce a video recording of me typing this message that theory would be instantly disproven.
Please save me! Be it your example or my (lack of) intelligence, or mental exhaustion, I do not really see your point here. Perhaps I will get it in daytime. In any case, I think I understand Seamus explanation well enough... and with that I am content for tonight. :sweatdrop:
Sarmatian
09-21-2007, 00:22
With the risk of being accused a sexist, what can you expect when you put 5 middle aged women with way too much free time together for a couple of hours?
Watchman
09-21-2007, 00:39
Around here at least, you can still expect them to know planets are round. :sweatdrop:
Gregoshi
09-21-2007, 02:26
But the Earth isn't a planet - it is the Center of the Universe - and hence, flat. I can't make it planar than that.
Watchman
09-21-2007, 02:27
:whip:
That was painful.
Are you claiming that evolution is not a fact? If so, perhaps you should be a little more careful when choosing who you call "idiot"... it could backfire, you know. :inquisitive:
Edit: Just to keep things clear, I do not mean that you're an idiot. Please don't take my post that way. :sweatdrop:
I wish this forum had a serach engine, I'd show you the long, drawn out debate we had about evolution a while ago. Me (Pro Science/ Pro Evolution) debated Nav an.one other guy who believed in creationism
HoreTore
09-21-2007, 07:05
A fact is that I, Geoffrey S, typed this message. That is and remains a fact. A theory would be that someone posits theories that infact it wasn't me who typed it, but someone else since the style of writing is supposedly inconsistent with my usual style. They won't be able to conclusively prove it, since there are no witnesses to have seen it happen, but if I were to produce a video recording of me typing this message that theory would be instantly disproven.
I'll give you a statement:
It was Geoffrey S who wrote that. Fact or theory?
Now, we all know that it is a fact. However, if the world was an alternate dimension where banana's are blue, then it might not have been. So, all I have to do to prove that the fact is false, is to prove that this IS an alternate dimension where banana's are blue. And unfortunately, we can never be 100% sure that this isn't an alternate dimension where bananas are blue. Just watch Matrix :laugh4:
What you are forgetting here, is the third element: the truth. The TRUTH cannot be disproved, since it is TRUE. However, all the facts in the world are only facts until they have been just that - disproved. So, we have two things; at the top the truth, which is the ultimate answer to life and everything(42), but which we'll never know for certain, so we chuck everything we "know" is right into the second category, facts, and they only stay in that category until they are disproved by a later discovery. Now on to the theories. A theory is just that, a theory. However, when a theory gets tested enough through time, like evolution has, they become(evolve!) facts, but we'll still call them theories to confuse people.
InsaneApache
09-21-2007, 09:28
*Attempts to drag thread back OT*
You'd have thought that Guinan would know the earth is round, her serving Altarian brandy and all that!
There's never a Spock around when you need one. Fascinating.
Byzantine Mercenary
09-21-2007, 12:11
If you watch the woman to the left of whoopie she is quite indignant about the womans claiming to ''not know'' what shape the world was.
I would also like to point out that believing in a flat earth has always been a minority thing:
In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe. Today essentially all professional medievalists agree with Russell that the "medieval flat Earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat Earthers" were the exception.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth#In_the_Middle_Ages
but i agree that the tv show is inane :yes:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-21-2007, 13:02
Byzantine Merc is right. Although I think it was the Enlightenment.
Hore Tore: Fact and Truth are in no way related. a fact is testable, Truth merely is.
I might say that the existence of God is an inescapable Truth, because try as I might I can't get away from him but his existence is not a fact.
Truth is philosophy, fact is science.
Truth cannot be dispoved, if the facts point against truth then the facts are wrong. This is why you will never convince Nav about evolution, because for him the Bible is the litteral, true, word of God and is independant of all the facts.
Geoffey S's post is not a fact for us, but a theory. It is a theory for Geoff himself though since he knows he hit the reply button, at least we think he did.
macsen rufus
09-21-2007, 13:47
I might say that the existence of God is an inescapable Truth
You might .... and I might not agree. You are merely expressing an article of faith, which is beyond the bounds of testability.
Truth cannot be dispoved, if the facts point against truth then the facts are wrong
Rather the "truth" is just an article of faith which has been contradicted, even disproved, by the facts.
To my mind for something to qualify as a fact it must be true, else it is a belief (if it is not testable) or an error (if, on testing, it proves to be incorrect). Fact and truth are irreducibly linked. To claim that things which can only be believed are "Truth" is wishful thinking, at the most charitable, a mere assertion.
Someone dragged in Einstein and Newton earlier - I would restate the position: Einstein did not "disprove" Newtonian mechanics, merely defined the limits of its truth, subsuming it into a greater truth with wider applicability. Apples didn't suddenly stop falling at 9.81m/s/s the day the General Theory of Relativity was published. For the majority of phenonema available to the human senses, Newtonian physics works just fine. If we need to look elsewhere, we need to use the Einsteinian or Heisenburgian models, as appropriate.
And if we look even further, we need to use the biblical models.:laugh4:
macsen rufus
09-21-2007, 14:49
:laugh4: Shhh!!!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-21-2007, 20:54
You might .... and I might not agree. You are merely expressing an article of faith, which is beyond the bounds of testability.
I'm actually not expressing anything here. I try to keep my personal theology out of arguements like this, just so we're clear on my meaning. God was just the nearest example.
Rather the "truth" is just an article of faith which has been contradicted, even disproved, by the facts.
No, because fact and truth do not affect each other, that's my point.
To my mind for something to qualify as a fact it must be true, else it is a belief (if it is not testable) or an error (if, on testing, it proves to be incorrect). Fact and truth are irreducibly linked. To claim that things which can only be believed are "Truth" is wishful thinking, at the most charitable, a mere assertion.
Well actuall there is no such thing as a fact. A Cold Hard Fact is a mental construct of convenience to prevent you from asking whether that tree is really a boat, a boat and a tree simultaniously or Banquo's tracked artillary in camoflage.
Or a Duck.
Someone dragged in Einstein and Newton earlier - I would restate the position: Einstein did not "disprove" Newtonian mechanics, merely defined the limits of its truth, subsuming it into a greater truth with wider applicability. Apples didn't suddenly stop falling at 9.81m/s/s the day the General Theory of Relativity was published. For the majority of phenonema available to the human senses, Newtonian physics works just fine. If we need to look elsewhere, we need to use the Einsteinian or Heisenburgian models, as appropriate.
What Einstien did was prove that Newton's theories were not fact, and actually a bit wrong. Newtonian Physics was never more than a theory that had been accepted as fact by convention. You just provided the ideal example for my arguement.
A fact is a fact as long as it remains disproved. Truth is unassailable.
Rodion Romanovich
09-21-2007, 21:44
Well, I'd claim so anyway, it's not called a theory because it's a fact, it's called a theory because it's a theory. Might be a very good and accepted one, but that still doesn't make it a fact.:inquisitive:
You know, in the middle ages, a very good and widely accepted theory was that the world was flat, that didn't make it true, did it?
Scientific theory = theory with a lot of evidence supporting it and no known countra-arguments, plus a theoretical model, considered sensible, has been created, each possible way of cross-validating each part of it has been carried out in an extensive manner.
A few scientific theories include: gravity (jumping from a church tower is usually a bad idea), thermal conduction (touching a hot plate and keeping your hand on it is not a good idea), theorems of impedance (why the computer you sit behind when reading this at all exists), etc.
Evolution is not a theory, it's a scientific theory. It can't be compared to ridiculous fanatical ideas about flat earth, flying spaghetti monsters, and mankind being created out of dust and a rib, which have no supporting evidence whatsoever (unless you forget about Occam's razor, in which case you're allowed to state that the existence of water is proof of the existence of a big allmightly monster called "odfasfgag" which creates this water by eating people and octosquids, processing this in its intestines, and creates the water by peeing).
Rodion Romanovich
09-21-2007, 21:50
I might say that the existence of God is an inescapable Truth, because try as I might I can't get away from him but his existence is not a fact.
Breakups aren't that difficult really... just SMS him if you don't dare saying it to him in person: "there never was anything between us, but now it's over, and it's not your fault, it's mine" :wink:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-21-2007, 22:22
I'm actually not expressing anything here.
An inherently untrue statement. :cheesy:
I try to keep my personal theology out of arguements like this, just so we're clear on my meaning. God was just the nearest example.
This is a good statement.
Horetore:
Theory is not fact. Grad school (where your intelligence will demand you show up eventually) will eat you alive if you can't use scientific language with precision.
You can say that the ToE is "tantamount to fact," "supported by an overwhelming abundance of data," or "the only explanation that even begins to make sense of all of the issues involved" -- which is what you've been arguing (correctly) so far -- but saying it hasn't been disproved so now it's a fact is sloppy.
Gregoshi
09-22-2007, 03:40
But the Earth isn't a planet - it is the Center of the Universe - and hence, flat. I can't make it planar than that.
:whip:
That was painful.
Flattery will get you nowhere. :laugh4:
HoreTore
09-22-2007, 06:58
Hore Tore: Fact and Truth are in no way related. a fact is testable, Truth merely is.
A truth is not testable in the way that the answer cannot prove it false. Ie, a truth cannot be disproved. You can of course test it to see whether it is true or not(and the result will always be that it is true). This is, of course, assuming that we will ever find the truth. Which seems rather unlikely...
For example, let's assume that 2+2=4 is TRUE. Now, I can test and check if that really is true, however, if it actually is the truth, then the answer can never be anything but yes.
Banquo's Ghost
09-22-2007, 08:32
Flattery will get you nowhere. :laugh4:
:no: Honestly Greg, that deserves a sphere warning.
Duke of Gloucester
09-22-2007, 08:49
Uh.... You've misunderstood the word "theory". In a scientific sense, it does mean "fact"... Just facts that you can disprove, unlike blind faith...
No, No, No, No, No, No, NO!
All scientific "proposals" are to a certain extent tentative, whether they are classed as hypotheses, theories or laws. Scientists are very comfortable (at least the good ones are) with disgarding ideas when the evidence no longer supports them. If the ideas were "facts" then the evidence would be disregarded instead, wouldn't it?
If you believe in creationism then you have to accept that your ideas fly in the face of the available evidence. The idea that scientists are wilfully or stupidly misinterpreting it has no intellectual merit whatever. Similarly the notion that science deals in concepts proved beyond any doubt is fundamentally wrong and at bottom just as blinkered as believing the Earth is flat.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-22-2007, 12:31
An inherently untrue statement. :cheesy:
In relation to God. :inquisitive:
This is a good statement.
Well I try, no one on this Earth is perfect.
A truth is not testable in the way that the answer cannot prove it false. Ie, a truth cannot be disproved. You can of course test it to see whether it is true or not(and the result will always be that it is true). This is, of course, assuming that we will ever find the truth. Which seems rather unlikely...
You don't test truth, because you know it is true. Now, please excuse me because I have this arguement to hand for theological purposes:
Love. How do you test that you love someone, or that they love you? You can't. How can you explain it? You can't. She's pretty, sexy, kind etc. Will NEVER add up to "I love her" in a million years. So love is a truth, not a fact.
For example, let's assume that 2+2=4 is TRUE. Now, I can test and check if that really is true, however, if it actually is the truth, then the answer can never be anything but yes.
No, that's a fact within a decimal number system.
Gregoshi
09-22-2007, 18:43
:no: Honestly Greg, that deserves a sphere warning.
That implies a 3 point warning when I only made a 2 point pun. That is not only out of line but also pointless. Sorry, I'm suffering from dimensionia.
Geoffrey S
09-23-2007, 00:46
Love. How do you test that you love someone, or that they love you? You can't. How can you explain it? You can't. She's pretty, sexy, kind etc. Will NEVER add up to "I love her" in a million years. So love is a truth, not a fact.
Is it a truth? For the largest part (for instance, homosexuals excepted) it's quite posslbe that it represents the most likely route to reproduction, and when not it's frequently self-denial.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-23-2007, 04:56
That implies a 3 point warning when I only made a 2 point pun. That is not only out of line but also pointless. Sorry, I'm suffering from dimensionia.
He probably thought you were going for the conversion.
:cheesy:
Banquo's Ghost
09-23-2007, 08:49
That implies a 3 point warning when I only made a 2 point pun. That is not only out of line but also pointless. Sorry, I'm suffering from dimensionia.
Tsk. Don't ovoid the solid nature of my warning. Your attempt speaks volumes.
:wink:
Geoffrey S
09-23-2007, 09:30
Bah, I've seen better puns. You guys are out of shape.
Bah, I've seen better puns. You guys are out of shape.
Tsk, you don't even pay them for it.:whip: ~;)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-23-2007, 14:12
Is it a truth? For the largest part (for instance, homosexuals excepted) it's quite posslbe that it represents the most likely route to reproduction, and when not it's frequently self-denial.
Well, for starters, not all love is sexual. Love is the part that doesn't really have anything to do with sexual attraction. You can't qualify or quantify it, you can't expalin or justify it, it just is.
Watchman
09-23-2007, 14:19
I tend to regard it as a sort of built-in mental disorder, since it tends to make even otherwise perfectly sensible people behave very stupidly at times.
But unlike most mental disorders, people like to have it and are quite excited about it even.
I tend to call it an emotion, by your definition hate is a mental disorder just as well.
Watchman
09-23-2007, 14:55
"And it may be that you love that which is bad for you, and hate that which is good for you. Allah knoweth, ye knoweth not."
- the Qur'an
I think that chestnut can be applied to nigh anything.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-23-2007, 14:59
Bah, I've seen better puns. You guys are out of shape.
Quit trying to market your "Puns of Steel" video already. Save it for the Frontroom.
HoreTore
09-23-2007, 18:54
Similarly the notion that science deals in concepts proved beyond any doubt is fundamentally wrong and at bottom just as blinkered as believing the Earth is flat.
It really is a good idea to read the entire thread before hitting the reply-button.
Geoffrey S
09-23-2007, 19:09
Well, for starters, not all love is sexual. Love is the part that doesn't really have anything to do with sexual attraction. You can't qualify or quantify it, you can't expalin or justify it, it just is.
It's that part of humans which is still animal, in the sense that it focuses on passing on genes. Spouse, children, parents... love is that which makes us do crazy things to ensure the continuation of our genetic line.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-23-2007, 22:20
It's that part of humans which is still animal, in the sense that it focuses on passing on genes. Spouse, children, parents... love is that which makes us do crazy things to ensure the continuation of our genetic line.
It's not all reproduction and not all love is sexual.
Geoffrey S
09-23-2007, 23:03
I disagree with the first part, and agree with the second. For the most part love helps us stick as reliably as possible to the best course of passing on our genes, be it in finding someone you believe to be the 'one' for you or in loving children and protecting them from harm. Sure, that's not always the case, but with billions of humans the odds favour some exceptions. Adding to that, in my opinion affection is often mistaken for love.
Papewaio
09-23-2007, 23:03
Tsk. Don't ovoid the solid nature of my warning. Your attempt speaks volumes.
:wink:
Now, now if it was a solid warning it would have been 2 points, a number two to be precise. :wink:
Geoffrey S
09-23-2007, 23:08
You two really shouldn't square off; such forms of conflict show a clear clash of spheres of influence...
Gregoshi
09-24-2007, 02:24
You two really shouldn't square off...
When two mods have divided opinions, we'd best forget the remainder of the thread.
Now, now if it was a solid warning it would have been 2 points, a number two to be precise. :wink:
What a waste of two puns.
Papewaio
09-24-2007, 03:27
No, I think you mean what a waste from two buns.
Gregoshi
09-24-2007, 05:50
You crack me up Pape. :laugh4:
HoreTore
09-24-2007, 07:16
Stop being all anal.
Banquo's Ghost
09-24-2007, 07:53
Stop being all anal.
Cheeky.
Pannonian
09-24-2007, 10:27
Stop being all anal.
Who told you to butt in? Stop poking your nose where it's not wanted, or the ****'s going to hit the fan.
Banquo's Ghost
09-24-2007, 12:05
Who told you to butt in? Stop poking your nose where it's not wanted, or the ****'s going to hit the fan.
Now you're scraping the bottom. If Kukri catches wind of how this thread has fundamentally degenerated, he'll close it.
Please. :embarassed:
Gregoshi
09-24-2007, 15:35
I can't even pun this as hypottynuse humour since we've apparently lost that angle some six posts ago...not that any thread has a right angle, though without such, the square of the two side of the discussion cannot equal the square of the hypottynuse humour. We tried that angle though, and nothing squared once we lost the geometry of the discussion. This bodes ill for the shape of things to come. :square:
Geoffrey S
09-24-2007, 15:44
Well, at least no-one can accuse you of circular reasoning... I figure it's time to round up the culprits and give them a dose of humble pi.
KukriKhan
09-24-2007, 16:08
Now you're scraping the bottom. If Kukri catches wind of how this thread has fundamentally degenerated, he'll close it.
Please. :embarassed:
:sotto voce: I figured there were at least 3.14 puns remaindering
Banquo's Ghost
09-24-2007, 18:07
:sotto voce: I figured there were at least 3.14 puns remaindering
Maybe, but we've gone off at such a tangent.
Pannonian
09-24-2007, 18:28
Maybe, but we've gone off at such a tangent.
Pardon me for preaching, but it's an integral part of moderation to allow for posts of all denominations. If you can't differentiate between that and things outside this area, then I'm afraid we're on a gradient to nowhere.
BTW, why did you use speulers in your previous post?
InsaneApache
09-24-2007, 19:02
Maybe, but we've gone off at such a tangent.
Perhaps we should cosine this thread to history.
Gregoshi
09-24-2007, 20:42
:end: ~:wave:
Geoffrey S
09-24-2007, 20:45
Shorter posts? That's a sinus punners are running out of jokes.
InsaneApache
09-24-2007, 21:13
That's a bit obtuse of you. Nevertheless an acute observation. Perhaps you should try being less oblique.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-24-2007, 21:29
Always trying to play an angle eh, IA? Keep it up long enough and things will come around full circle.
InsaneApache
09-24-2007, 22:55
Always trying to play an angle eh, IA? Keep it up long enough and things will come around full circle.
I wonder, is it possible that euclid explain that to me in more detail? :laugh4:
Papewaio
09-24-2007, 23:09
Hypotenuse if this can keep going much longer. The language of the angles certainly covers a lot of points.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-25-2007, 00:20
Hey, Oh worthy moderator, it's your job to keep everyone in line.
:cheesy:
Watchman
09-25-2007, 00:26
...you people are making baby Jesus cry blood.
Gregoshi
09-25-2007, 04:14
...you people are making baby Jesus cry blood.
Why? Surely we are blessed by the Puntiff, and besides, some of the puns are Anglican.
CrossLOPER
09-25-2007, 04:15
/thread.
Agreed. In the name of 9th grade geometry, somebody lock this thing.
Gregoshi
09-25-2007, 04:27
Getting back to the original topic, I see we're getting requests for the mods to scribe "There be dragons here" on this thread.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.