So as not to hijack this thread see: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11129429&postcount=92
If you want to continue that discussion let me know if you start a new thread (not sure if that one counts as too old to be revisited).
So as not to hijack this thread see: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11129429&postcount=92
If you want to continue that discussion let me know if you start a new thread (not sure if that one counts as too old to be revisited).
I sometimes use weak hypotheticals that sound profound when faced with uncritical thinkers. Yeah, shooting fish in a barrel. I know. Sue me.
Some people though, the types who are just dogmatic and will not engage, can usually be stumped by a hypothetical that would never get by the people here.
After beating my head against their idiocy I toss one out that tends to end the “debate” because they have no response for it. Not that a response doesn’t exist, just one they will never clue in to.
I know better than to try that here or with some of my friends or family as they’ll bust me in a second for it. On occasion though it can be pretty satisfying to get one by.
prr, in your last post you’ve moved the goalposts. I gave a reason why twickster would not want to answer to hypothetical situations and you responded why it is not a reason. I rebutted why it is a reason and your next response was giving a reason why discussing hypotheticals can be useful. I never said it couldn’t. What I argued for was the existence of a valid reason why someone would not want to answer to hypothetical situations and stick to the original situation.