The moment I knew that I had to break it off with my ex was when a comment about tea-cup saucers turned into an accusation that I “always had to be right”.
We were having cake for dessert:
Her: “Can you grab plates?”
Me: Grabs a couple of small plates.
Her: “No, those aren’t for cake. It’s the really small ones.”
Me: “Okay, but FYI the small ones are actually teacup saucers. You can tell the difference because they have the indent in the middle so the teacup doesn’t slip around.”
Her: “You just always have to be right, don’t you?”
What followed was a truly bonkers argument where I found myself accused of “lording my intelligence” and told that I had to be right in everything.
For the record, I told her I literally didn’t give a shit what she wants to eat cake off of. I’m the guy that would happily use a Tupperware lid as a plate if it was the closest thing to hand. I was just pointing out an “interesting fact” (in my mind at least).
Understanding each others’ definitions is key to communication, so I’m with you on this one. I’ll often get accused of “you know what I meant!”, when I really didn’t and was honestly asking for clarification.
Kids, don’t take ontology classes even if your friends say it’s cool.
you’re right. Saucers (despite the English name) are meant to drink beverages, therefore they are small glasses, not small plates
i got into an argument with my in law about a 60$ sticker to block the ‘waves’ on my phone. for my health. and my phone will still work… it was a hologram sticker.
well, they do sell ones that work. you can measure them blocking all em radiation from exiting out the back of your phone… instead blasting all of it into your head. significantly more of it too, since the normal reaction of a phone that loses signal is to boost its own in order to find a tower.
I’ve got the new ones that also block radiation, they’re on sale for 120$
Toss up : a coworker who I would have counted as quite intelligent said we haven’t been to the moon because “it’s impossible to launch a rocket to the moon and land on it because rockets go in a straight line. Trying to time the shot of the rocket, and get to the moon at the exact moment when the moon gets to the right spot would be astronomically impossible. The odds of pulling that off at the speed you would be traveling and the distance you travel… Well the odds are effectively zero.”
"Also you can’t catch up to the moon because the moon is traveling faster then our rockets can go "
Either that or a prochoice individual who voted for Trump…
How does this person think things like ICBMs work? They just go straight up and away from the earth and can’t turn?
The first argument is more or less understandable (still wrong): you can’t just propel yourself upwards at your earliest convenience to reach the moon, you have to play around with orbital mechanics.
If your friend’s idea of a moon-worthy vessel is an unsteerable rocket with infinite fuel and a chair strapped to it… well the odds are effectively zero.The second argument? bro, last time I checked the moon was still orbiting Earth
The friend should play Kerbal Space Program. It will be a fun way to show that yes, it’s really hard, but it is possible to play around with orbital mechanics and get to the moon.
And then it will show that an unsteerable rocket with infinite fuel and a chair strapped to it is also possible, just really really hard.
I imagine the latter isn’t too hard, you just have to get it right just before leaving the atmosphere (quick saves help); however, isn’t landing (not crashing nor rolling around) on the Mün without steering straight up impossible?
Though I can see some rocket landing on a planet with an atmosphere…
Obligatory mention: Full Body Workout Every Other Day?
Holy butts, that was the good kind of bonkers
Or if you’d prefer it in video form: https://youtu.be/eECjjLNAOd4
the one where the democrats are the ‘party of slavery’ because of what the parties stood for in 1860. yeah that’s why I’m voting for Lincoln and the union this year dumbfucks
And yet California—a solidly blue state—just voted by public referendum to uphold slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_California_Proposition_6
I wonder why so many Democrats left the party during the civil rights movement? I wonder why David Duke left the Democrat party? I guess we’ll never know.
My mom was playing Jeopardy on her Alexa and one of the questions was about a state in Mexico. Her boyfriend, who was very drunk, adamantly insists that it’s a trick question because “Mexico doesn’t have states.” It’s literally called the United Mexican States. Two of my aunts are from Mexico. It took like two hours to get him off the subject.
Whether if something is deceptively [a trait] does it mean it’s the inverse of the trait or more of the trait than it appears, ie: if you call something deceptively shallow, does that mean it is shallow, but looks deep, or that it is deep but looks shallow. Hours of arguing with my family and checking numerous sources, we came to the conclusion that the phrasing can be used either way.
I think if something is described as deceptively shallow it means that it looks deeper than it is. IMO
🤔🤯
Goddamit. I was so certain it was the inverse, and now here I am debating myself
Anytime I enter one with a purist/gatekeeper. You just can’t reason with them and they absolutely refuse to see the other side of the argument. They must always believe that their direction is the direction for all things regarding X fandoms or general hobby.
I can’t remember the specifics (both because it was dumb and because it’s so embarrassing I think my brain is trying to protect me), but from what I recall I got into a heated argument on the internet with someone because I felt that fans weren’t cheering hard enough for a band I liked at a concert.
…yeah, I know. I’m grateful, though, because it was so colossally stupid and pointless that I had a come-to-Jesus moment and swore off internet arguments entirely. I can only imagine the countless hours of my life it’s saved me in the intervening years.
This one…
Nuh uh!
This one…
Whether the saying is “if they think that, then they’ve got another think coming” or “if they think that, then they’ve got another thing coming”.
After a cursory search it seems like both are acceptable. “Think” appears to be the original phrase, but “thing” is more common today, especially in America.
That one always gets me. The phrase means that the person is wrong about something, and circumstances will compel them to reconsider their position or opinion. The word “think” refers to a cognitive process, such as reconsidering their position or opinion. As for the alternative, what’s the “thing” that’s coming? Their latest Amazon order is out for delivery?
Comeuppance.
Whether 12:00:00 is a period of time and could be AM or PM, or whether it was a point in time i.e., the meridian, and was neither AM nor PM.
I feel like there’s not much to fight about. I can understand the latter perspective, but from a practical point of view it just makes sense to consistently assign it to AM/PM rather than creating an unnecessary edge case (lord knows there are enough of those with date/time systems). Also this is all made moot by the superior system: the 24-hour clock (now THERE’S something I bet you could have a good argument about!).
Indeed, the minute (sorry) difference is what made the argument so dumb. In the end it came down to the implementation of the systems we were working withm which were… not good. My favourite thing about 24-hour time is to be able to use 00:00 and 24:00. And the worst thing is notation in systems only going up to 23:59:59.
My wife and I bought 10 lottery tickets at a time when the pot got up to 300 million or something like that. we were talking about what we would would do with the money once we won and couldn’t agree on how many of our friends mortgages we would pay off. we MAY have had some other things going on in a relationship at that time, but it’s still one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever gotten in.
I like to believe that I would pay off mortgages for immediate family, and buy a house for any immediate members who don’t have one. If I have some left over I would think about extended family and friends.
I think I’m with your wife on this one.
ugh. gotta be the one about jesus preaching pacifism. The person said the turn the other cheek was not to be taken literally but a thing he says after he admonishes a disciple for cuting off a soldiers ear and healing the ear but then he says his fight is yet to come and he will need to be armed and armored for it. that he feels is literal and not prose at all. smh.
So dumb.
Hour argument, that the final cliff fall scene in Predator 1 was two different jumps in the 2 cuts.
Can see in the first one he is rotating. Second cut is a straight plumb drop into the water.
How were the rotational moments counteracted?
They weren’t, it’s two different jumps/takes.
2 friends came up with some hair-brained arguments that you could stop rotating on the way down. (눈_눈)
The only way would be air resistance, and hands/arms is not going to be enough to create drag to counter the rotation.
I hate when people get into minute arguments about what is visually happening on screen versus the story that’s being told. It can be a single jump narratively but two jumps in production. (I’ve never seen the movie.)
Jackie Chan: Always shoot the punch twice.
