• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

The Question Club

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tempestas

who purgatoried their torsos night after night wi
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California
#1
For when there was that one question you've been wanting to ask but didn't feel that it deserved a whole thread. It can be about anything, like dogs to MBTI to fruits to finding out that one word you know the meaning of and reminds you of a certain object and starts with a certain letter.

To start: What is the funniest joke in the world, in English? Assuming it makes sense, that is.

YouTube- Monty Python - The Funniest Joke In The World
 

Tempestas

who purgatoried their torsos night after night wi
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California
#4

Tempestas

who purgatoried their torsos night after night wi
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California
#6
I know some... but my parents don't let me watch South Park.

I hate being what society considers 'a kid.' (Not goats. :p )
 

Kuu

Galactic acid
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
3,382
Location
The sea of stars
#7
I know some... but my parents don't let me watch South Park.
You poor, miserable bastard... you must be really young, or really fucking unlucky... maybe both.

This is the part of the post where I make an eloquent speech compelling you to rebel against the tyranny of society and the evil minions they have set apart to oppress you, whom you know as your parents. After you finish reading it, you become a wiser and more determined individual, ready to face the unfairness and insanity of the world. And you give me cookies, many cookies.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,687
#8
I hate being what society considers 'a kid.'
Your solution: Grow a Gordito.

Youth is not an excuse.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,687
#16
*couldn't think of a question to ask*

*starts wondering what the perfect question would be, by definition of being a question that can be asked of anyone, at any time, for any reason, any number of times, and will always provoke an interesting reply/response*

*at a loss*
 

Tempestas

who purgatoried their torsos night after night wi
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California
#19
...To clarify, by asking for the funniest joke in the world, I was looking for a translation of the one in the video.

Just in case it wasn't clear....
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
509
#20
Irony. Is there too much of it? Do the disaffected youth need something else to hang their humor-hats on? If irony, as it's employed in modern terms, is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to smarminess, the self-righteous/politically correct, and generally what are perceived to be the absurdities of contemporary life - what will the knee-jerk reaction be to the ubiquity of irony? What alternatives are there? How do we undermine irony? Is it just a vicious cycle - fighting irony with more ironic/subversive irony?
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
509
#21
"[he/she/it]...was quite the card."

Anyone know what the f*ckin' hell this expression means? I feel like I might have a vague idea, but some clarification would be nice. : (
 

Pythia

Vagabond
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
126
#24
There is one small thing which has been bugging me for a while: Why some people take off their shoes before committing a suicide?

Q. Why do Japanese people remove their shoes when they commit suicide?
A. The simple answer is that they are copying what they see in �trendy dramas' where suicides are common and shoes are often removed. The origin of the practice probably lies in the same place as the idea of taking off your shoes when you enter a house. Shoes are considered dirty and when one steps up to enter a house one leaves one's dirty shoes behind. Taking off one's shoes before one jumps symbolizes leaving the filth and dirt of the material world behind. Removing one's shoes also serves the practical purpose of showing that your death was not an accident.
Source:
This only applies to Japanese people, though.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
509
#25
Logic question -

Ruth had always wanted to dance so badly. The judges were not impressed by her dancing abilities, so it would appear she got her wish.

Which fallacy is this? Amphiboly/not a fallacy? At what point in determining the intended meaning of a statement does its uniqueness take precedence over perceptual bias (assuming that it's possible 'badly' in the context of this sentence is not describing the degree to which Ruth wanted to dance, but rather the skill/lack thereof with which she wished to dance) ? Why is it so inconceivable that this Ruth character might have wanted to humiliate herself intentionally for the lulz or for some other personal reason, especially considering the two latter sentences support this interpretation?
 
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
#26
Logic question -

Ruth had always wanted to dance so badly. The judges were not impressed by her dancing abilities, so it would appear she got her wish.

Which fallacy is this? Amphiboly/not a fallacy? At what point in determining the intended meaning of a statement does its uniqueness take precedence over perceptual bias (assuming that it's possible 'badly' in the context of this sentence is not describing the degree to which Ruth wanted to dance, but rather the skill/lack thereof with which she wished to dance) ? Why is it so inconceivable that this Ruth character might have wanted to humiliate herself intentionally for the lulz or for some other personal reason, especially considering the two latter sentences support this interpretation?
haha, It's not that it is inconceivable. It's just the less likely of the two. You rarely hear someone claiming they want to be bad a something and so people naturally assume that 'badly' refers to deperation as opposed to ability. This is why it is funny.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
509
#27
I understand why it's funny...you...you physical thing! It's just that persistent mental tugging you feel when reading the statement which has got me bothered, the nagging sense that this woman's wish couldn't possibly have been to be unilaterally derided by a board of dance-judges, the supposed syntactical infelicity n' all that - the very reason why it's funny. The statement in and of itself, is not amphibolous; it's amphibolous only because of the customary modern western-world denizen predilection to accept it as axiomatic that a child conceiving of the day when its dreams will be realized is imagining a moment of so-called 'positive' triumph - it's this very deeply ingrained tendency to associate certain things with certain other things, ascribing irony where it may not have been intended, etc., even in cases where doing so is to essentially ignore the intrinsic and most immediately evident, if scrutinized in a wholly objective manner, meaning of the statement(s); such as (imo) in this case. I'm of the opinion, despite one particular person's insistence to the contrary, that barring 'weighted' preconceptions, in describing a person named Ruth who aspired one day to dance in a manner which would be regarded as poor, maladroit, etc., the statement in question is logically valid/sound/isn't fallacious.

Why should we be forced to bring our biases to the table in instances where they may not be necessary for apprehension?
 
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
#28
I understand why it's funny...you...you physical thing! It's just that persistent mental tugging you feel when reading the statement which has got me bothered, the nagging sense that this woman's wish couldn't possibly have been to be unilaterally derided by a board of dance-judges, the supposed syntactical infelicity n' all that - the very reason why it's funny. The statement in and of itself, is not amphibolous; it's amphibolous only because of the customary modern western-world denizen predilection to accept it as axiomatic that a child conceiving of the day when its dreams will be realized is imagining a moment of so-called 'positive' triumph - it's this very deeply ingrained tendency to associate certain things with certain other things, ascribing irony where it may not have been intended, etc., even in cases where doing so is to essentially ignore the intrinsic and most immediately evident, if scrutinized in a wholly objective manner, meaning of the statement(s); such as (imo) in this case. I'm of the opinion, despite one particular person's insistence to the contrary, that barring 'weighted' preconceptions, in describing a person named Ruth who aspired one day to dance in a manner which would be regarded as poor, maladroit, etc., the statement in question is logically valid/sound/isn't fallacious.

Why should we be forced to bring our biases to the table in instances where they may not be necessary for apprehension?

Words lack any emotions from the original writer and therefore 100% of the emotional content has to be added by the reader. This is why we are forced to bring our biased evaluations forward. It is all we have. As you said, our assumptions will be tainted from a western world perspective.

If the above statement was spoken to you, you'd more than likely get some of the intended emotional content from the speaker (unless he was some monotonic freak...).


Also, there is technically an error in that statement if you were taking it from a serious perspective. Ruth wouldn't necessarily be a bad dancer, she just wouldn't be a good/great dancer. This is because she has obviously entered a competition where judges score you on how good/great you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom