By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Half naked

blaydcor on 04 April 2008

Your logic in applying "it's like digging half a hole, its impossible'' is fundamentally flawed.

1)"Naked" is a predefined state with set parameters (i.e, no clothes.
2)If a hole were similarly predefined w/ set parameters (Say, dimensions), you could indeed dig half a hole.

Example: You're instructed to dig a 4 feet deep. You dig one 2 feet deep. you just dug half a hole.



Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.

Around the Network
Grey Acumen on 04 April 2008
totalwar23 said:
Grey Acumen said:

lol, yeah, pretty much, but the internet is vast, and I'm sure there will be a few people that appreciate the mental effort.

though i can't help but point out that "mutilato" is confusing "logically" with "legally"


Well, the example he used is a case of legality but legality follows strict logic anyways. Anyways, he was right on the money. Declaring that something might exist because there's no evidence to support its nonexistant is a fallacy.


Except that's not true. First off, sayign that legality follows strict logic is like saying that Politicians all have the people's best interest at heart.

Second of all, if there's no evidence to the contrary, then it MIGHT exist. It doesn't prove that it DOES exist, merely that it CAN. What people forget so easily is that just because the opposing argument hasn't been proven true doesn't make you side of the argument true either.



Seppukuties is like LBP Lite, on crack. Play it already!

Currently wrapped up in: Half Life, Portal, and User Created Source Mods
Games I want: (Wii)Mario Kart, Okami, Bully, Conduit,  No More Heroes 2 (GC) Eternal Darkness, Killer7, (PS2) Ico, God of War1&2, Legacy of Kain: SR2&Defiance


My Prediction: Wii will be achieve 48% market share by the end of 2008, and will achieve 50% by the end of june of 09. Prediction Failed.

<- Click to see more of her

 

kenzomatic on 04 April 2008

All I have to say is



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.

ioi + 1
d21lewis on 04 April 2008
blaydcor said:
Your logic in applying "it's like digging half a hole, its impossible'' is fundamentally flawed.

1)"Naked" is a predefined state with set parameters (i.e, no clothes.
2)If a hole were similarly predefined w/ set parameters (Say, dimensions), you could indeed dig half a hole.

Example: You're instructed to dig a 4 feet deep. You dig one 2 feet deep. you just dug half a hole.

I really need to be high, to enjoy this thread!  Anyway, in response to the example; you may dig half the hole you were instructed to dig, but it's still a whole hole.  It's just not the hole you want.  Regardless of what paremeters we use to define "naked",  you're naked when you don't have any clothes on.  Until someone from the Hole Institute of Holeology says a hole is not a hole until it is 1ft by 2 inches, or bigger, a hole is a hole.



epsilon72 on 04 April 2008
__XBrawlX__ said:

If a hole in the sky is possible, why not half of a regular hole?

Whoa, it's like real life Super Mario Galaxy!

 



Around the Network
iclim4 on 04 April 2008
Grey Acumen said:
Well, to point out, many people do say that they are only half dressed.

It's similar to the Glass Half empty/Full Question, which is answerable depending on whether you are pouring into the glass or pouring out of the glass. If you are pouring water into the glass and stop halfway, then it is half full, if you are pouring water out of the glass and stop halfway, the glass is half empty.

Same thing with clothes. If you were fully dressed, and then stopped while you still had clothes on, then you're halfway to being naked (half naked) but if you are in the process of putting clothes on, and stop before you finish, then you are only halfway dressed (half dressed)

Another question of life solved with LOGIC!

The terms "half full" and "half empty" can actually be properly used when pouring either in or out of the glass.
Here I'll make up two conversations to illustrate my point:
Example 1,
Guy: Can you empty that glass of water for me please?
Girl:sure *starts emptying glass*
Guy: aren't you done yet? because I really need the glass now.
Girl: Nope sorry, the glass is still half full so it might take awhile.
-or-
Girl: I'm pouring as fast as I can, It's already half empty so don't worry.

Example 2
Girl: I need a full glass of water for an experiment can you pour me one?
Guy: sure *starts pouring water into the glass*
Girl: Aren't you done yet? I really need the glass.
Guy:Nope sorry, the glass is still half empty so it might take awhile.
-or-
Guy:There's something wrong with the faucet, the water isn't coming out as fast as I want it to.
       The glass is already half full though so don't fret.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         iclim4 - "The Friends Thread changed my life!" (Pervert Alert!)                                            Tags? 

Galaki on 04 April 2008
d21lewis said:
blaydcor said:
Your logic in applying "it's like digging half a hole, its impossible'' is fundamentally flawed.

1)"Naked" is a predefined state with set parameters (i.e, no clothes.
2)If a hole were similarly predefined w/ set parameters (Say, dimensions), you could indeed dig half a hole.

Example: You're instructed to dig a 4 feet deep. You dig one 2 feet deep. you just dug half a hole.

I really need to be high, to enjoy this thread! Anyway, in response to the example; you may dig half the hole you were instructed to dig, but it's still a whole hole. It's just not the hole you want. Regardless of what paremeters we use to define "naked", you're naked when you don't have any clothes on. Until someone from the Hole Institute of Holeology says a hole is not a hole until it is 1ft by 2 inches, or bigger, a hole is a hole.


QFE. No hole is half, regardless of the size.

Some hole are just bigger than others, usually depending on how often it's being used?



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

kenzomatic on 04 April 2008

^You can have half a whole. Its half WAITTTTT..............



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.

ioi + 1
d21lewis on 04 April 2008

I'm now a fan, Galaki.



totalwar23 on 05 April 2008
Grey Acumen said:
totalwar23 said:
Grey Acumen said:

lol, yeah, pretty much, but the internet is vast, and I'm sure there will be a few people that appreciate the mental effort.

though i can't help but point out that "mutilato" is confusing "logically" with "legally"


Well, the example he used is a case of legality but legality follows strict logic anyways. Anyways, he was right on the money. Declaring that something might exist because there's no evidence to support its nonexistant is a fallacy.


Except that's not true. First off, sayign that legality follows strict logic is like saying that Politicians all have the people's best interest at heart.
umm...What? Care to elaborate on that?

Second of all, if there's no evidence to the contrary, then it MIGHT exist. It doesn't prove that it DOES exist, merely that it CAN. What people forget so easily is that just because the opposing argument hasn't been proven true doesn't make you side of the argument true either.

And what would the other side of the argument be in this case? To first suggest that something might exist, you need some kind of evidence or logical reasoning to support its existence even if you're not out to conclusively support its existence. Otherwise, it won't be logical. Take this example:

Guy 1: Vulcans might exist.

Guy 2: What?

Guy 1: They might exist in a galaxy far, far away.

Guy 2: Where's your proof?

Guy 1: Where's your proof that they don't exist?

Guy 2: But the burden of proof is on you.

Guy 1: But you can't prove that they don't exist so you must accept the possibility that they exist

Now how logical was that? Should we now accept the prossibility that Vulcans exist? It's kind of like putting a single number as an answer to a math (or engineering) test question. Your instructor will ask you "How did you arrive at this answer?" As you failed to showed your logical reasoning as to how you approached to that answer, you would get a zero for your answer whether it was right or not.