Fundamentally flawed statements

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:30 am

Have you heard any good ones?

I heard this one on the radio the other day.

"... it's just STUPID. It's like, it's like banning people from wearing the Australian flag. I mean, it's OK for people to do anything they like as long as they aren't breaking the law!"

Not quite a simple punchy Oxymoron. But pretty close.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:49 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:Have you heard any good ones?

I heard this one on the radio the other day.

"... it's just STUPID. It's like, it's like banning people from wearing the Australian flag. I mean, it's OK for people to do anything they like as long as they aren't breaking the law!"

Not quite a simple punchy Oxymoron. But pretty close.

In my Constitutional Development class:

Professor: Do you think that the government can prevent certain contracts from being made?
Girl: No. We have a right to contract. Unless it's an illegal contract.
Class: *facepalm*

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:54 pm

On state TV: Scientists have discovered how to clone plants!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:05 pm

Starmaker wrote:On state TV: Scientists have discovered how to clone plants!

You mean... leaving them alone until new shoots come from the root stalk?

PhoneLobster wrote:"... it's just STUPID. It's like, it's like banning people from wearing the Australian flag. I mean, it's OK for people to do anything they like as long as they aren't breaking the law!"

Believe it or not, this is similar to the problem with an early French Revolutionary that guarantees everyone the right to practice their religion any way they want as long as they don't break the law.

The idea that a right actually has to forbid the creation of laws to actually exist is a very difficult concept to get across to some people. Lots of folks just don't "get" why real rights that have real power just say stuff like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Now that is an actual guaranty of personal rights with some fucking teeth.

-Username17

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:06 pm

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:04 am

This from the crappy, crappy "Earth Final Conflict" series.

About a cow...

"She now produces ten times the amount of milk she used to."
...

"In half the time."

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:41 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:About a cow...

"She now produces ten times the amount of milk she used to."
...

"In half the time."

The statement isn't really fundamentally flawed. It does depend on a slippy definition of "milk" and the implicit understanding that production is based on a per day basis and cows are not giving milk the entire time of that period.

The average California cow produces 19,825 pounds of milk each year, more milk per cow than any any other state in the nation. That's 2,305 gallons of milk a year or about 8 gallons of milk every day of her milking period. That’s enough for 128 people to have a glass of milk every day!

I don't have a reference for this but modern cows have been bread for milk production; the result is that most dairy cows produce the equivalent of skim milk every day. A hundred years ago (more or less) most cows were bread for cream and butter, their unpasturized milk would be thicker than half and half and would separate on very cold mornings when left outside the house by the milk man. (Or so my father has told me.)

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:17 pm

tzor wrote:I don't have a reference for this but modern cows have been bread for milk production; the result is that most dairy cows produce the equivalent of skim milk every day. A hundred years ago (more or less) most cows were bread for cream and butter, their unpasturized milk would be thicker than half and half and would separate on very cold mornings when left outside the house by the milk man. (Or so my father has told me.)

That's interesting. I thought that they just did all the separating and/or homogenizing together with the pasteurization at some kind of factory (possibly the farm), and it was more efficient separation and homogenization methods that result in the milk you and I can buy at the store. Just like new hardcore pasteurization methods allow it to half a shelf like of a month or more. But your explanation totally makes sense: just excreting a lot of extra water into the milk would seem like the easiest way to get that kind of volume.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:15 pm

Tzors talking out his ass on this.

You don't have "Skim Milk Dairy Cows".

It's called Skim milk because they literally Skim the fat off it and while the machinery for that has changed, the cows are (mostly) the same.

The big change between old and new milk is that whole "A1 or A2" milk business. Basically a cow produces milk with A1 proteins or A2 proteins based on its breed. Any (minimal) difference in fat content is most likely a side effect of the A1 to A2 issue, and really they switched for production not fat reasons.

A1 protein milk is, sorta questionable. It's associated with heart disease, diabetes and the modern increase in lactose intolerance. But A1 cattle are cheaper and more productive, so that's pretty much what all the dairies use these days. But they AREN'T Skim Milk Cows! Thats just stoopid.

The only site I can find talking about Tzor's butter milk theory claims only a 2% difference in fat (pretty much on hearsay!) and is also a wacko site that declares Pasteurization to be evil! So hurray for Tzor's credibility streak there!

Also stupid is talking about a production rate happening in half the time. (you know, rate = amount over time) But Tzor really goes in for the stupid.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:You don't have "Skim Milk Dairy Cows".

I’ve seen the result of dairy cows prior to pasteurization and the output is more consistent with the thickness of skim milk than it is of pasteurized milk. I’m not suggesting that it was actual skim milk; you still need to process it further to “skim” the fat off of the milk, but it is still a very watery product.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:14 am

So you're saying you base this theory of yours on having milked a cow and it looked sort of watery.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:43 am

He was giving an off-the-cuff anecdote related to your complete inability to accept that some people phrase statements in a vague, though neither inconsistent nor irreconcilable with the truth, manner. Seriously, PL, I get that you hate tzor with the fury of a thousand suns, but couldn't you at least stand to hold your bile for when he actually says something worth refuting?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:46 am

You know that thing where I don't like poorly worded statements with unclear (or contradictory) meanings.

Your post just fell into that category.

Try rewording it so it makes sense.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:26 am

Tzor should probably stop with the humor attempts. It seems to not work.

Although, at least some people recognize he's attempting to be witty. Unlike when I am...

-Crissa

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:55 am

Nah, see Crissa, your humor is so subtle -

...and then I realized I was going to compare someone's sense of humor to quantum tunneling.

I think I'm going to go sit over there with my geek hat and think about something other than astrophysics.

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:11 pm

I was in elementary school at an anti-smoking presentation and the presenter said:

"Everyone who smokes dies of smoking if something else doesn't get them first."

think about it

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:01 pm

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:I was in elementary school at an anti-smoking presentation and the presenter said:

"Everyone who smokes dies of smoking if something else doesn't get them first."

think about it

In actual fact, anyone who lives with someone who smokes dies of "second hand smoke" according to the figures, unless their death was violent.

Had a Great Grandfather who got cancer, didn't get Chemo, lived with his son for the last 3 months, his son smoked. Later on after he died, people came by and for their study wrote "second hand smoke."

Found that pretty funny.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:50 pm

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:I was in elementary school at an anti-smoking presentation and the presenter said:

"Everyone who smokes dies of smoking if something else doesn't get them first."

think about it

What I like about that so much is it's technically true, although it's obvious to the point of being useless. I should adopt that saying for any number of other things.

Drinking and driving kills you unless something else kills you first. - Fair enough. What about some more absurd things that are still "true"?

Eating fresh fruits and vegetables each day kills you unless something else kills you first. Awesome!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:58 pm

What I like about that so much is it's technically true, although it's obvious to the point of being useless. I should adopt that saying for any number of other things.

Actually it's a meaning carrying sentence. Smoking will kill you, given enough time. It's like AIDS or Rabies in that way. It's wholly unlike things like Rubella that merely have a chance of killing you and are then over with.

-Username17

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:37 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Actually it's a meaning carrying sentence. Smoking will kill you, given enough time. It's like AIDS or Rabies in that way. It's wholly unlike things like Rubella that merely have a chance of killing you and are then over with.

-Username17

If you didn't already know that smoking was dangerous, the sentence would be meaningless.

"Everyone who kafarbles dies of kafarbling unless they die of something else first." What does that tell us about kafarbling?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:52 pm

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Actually it's a meaning carrying sentence. Smoking will kill you, given enough time. It's like AIDS or Rabies in that way. It's wholly unlike things like Rubella that merely have a chance of killing you and are then over with.

-Username17
If you didn't already know that smoking was dangerous, the sentence would be meaningless.

"Everyone who kafarbles dies of kafarbling unless they die of something else first." What does that tell us about kafarbling?

It tells us that kafarbles kills people. It further tells us that karfarbling is a constant activity.

Unlike, for example, being stabbed.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:31 am

... Except in 4e.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:41 am

TOZ wrote:Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I always thought something just didn't sound right about that statement. Obi Wan was a Sith all along it seems.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:33 am

Proponents of sex-segregated education:

"Segregated education has always given better results. It's the method employed by all elite European educational institutions."

Elite schools are traditionalist, and one of the fine old traditions is misogyny. Upholding it is part of maintaining an "elite" status. And how do they define quality of education, by success in life? Elite schools are attended by rich kids, and rich kids more often than not grow up to be rich adults.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:11 pm

Starmaker wrote:Proponents of sex-segregated education:

"Segregated education has always given better results. It's the method employed by all elite European educational institutions."

Having been in mixed schools all my life, but knowing people in segregated schools, I would have to say “meh” although they seem to have a fondness for inter-school dance events that I never really had when I was young.

The Gaming Den

Fundamentally flawed statements

Fundamentally flawed statements

Re: Fundamentally flawed statements