that's not phunny
that's not phunny
Sarcasm is a Body's Natural Defense Against Stupid
I will perch in my chair, scratch my cods, and roe over this.
I think it has to do something with live births.
"Friendships come in strange packages
The best ones are opened with a smile"
NA4BH '15
It's like asking what the last 3 words in the Doors song Touch Me, or the first 4 words of Carly Simon's song Your So Vain.
"Friendships come in strange packages
The best ones are opened with a smile"
NA4BH '15
Other things live in the Ocean that are not fish. Which reminds of this reasoning:
How many animals are in a pair of panty hose:
14 is the correct answer
One Ass
Two Calves
Ten little piggies
And a fish no one can find
From a purely logical stance, given the two premises, the conclusion is sound. This would, of course, only be accurate in the bounded set provided.
What? :shock: :chin:
"Where would we be without the agitators of the world to attach the electrodes
of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?" ~ Professor "Dick" Soloman
I think what he said is, he has no fucking idea.Originally Posted by WØTKX
A clear conscience is usually a sign of a bad memory
RIP ALBI-W3MIV RIP RUSS-W5RB RIP BOB-VK3ZL
In a bounded sense. You are only given 2 premises, so imagine for a moment that's all the information you have. In this case, it would be true. You know that all fish live in the sea. You know sharks live in the sea. That's it, you know of only one species of fish: Sharks. So, given the bounded set you're working with, it's a logically valid conclusion.
Now, open the bounded set to all marine life, and the logical conclusion drawn the the new set of premises ie, crabs live in the sea. Crabs are not fish. Dolphins live in the sea. Dolphins are not fish. Sharks live in the sea. You cannot conclude in that set of premises that sharks are fish, unless you are given another premise.
WTF? Uhhhh no. Just no. You're contradicting yourself by adding additional information to your "bounded set", i.e. that sharks are a species of fish. You have to break it down further than that: You don't know WTF a fish or a shark is. All you know is that they both live in the sea. Therefore, you cannot conclude that sharks are fish. They are both simply things that live in the sea and that's all you know. Sorry, but you're wrong here.
EDIT:
Hint: replace "fish" with jazigimos and "sharks" with blazingilas. No one has any clue what a jazigimo or a blazingila is, outside of the fact (according to the information given) that they both live in the sea.
Last edited by N2CHX; 04-01-2015 at 02:22 PM.
El wrongo. amigo. ALL fish don not live in the sea. Some live in streams, lakes, and other fresh water locations. I even had one in a bowl once. After some time, it wound up in a different kind of bowl.
A clear conscience is usually a sign of a bad memory
RIP ALBI-W3MIV RIP RUSS-W5RB RIP BOB-VK3ZL
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote