I've always loved that quote, it helps you to stop viewing things negatively and put unnecessary barriers in front of yourself.Scars Unseen said:Not a fan of inevitability myself. One of my favorite Douglas Adams quotes deals with that topic. "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."ClockworkPenguin said:The phrase "what will be will be" is only a tautology when read in a strictly literal sense. It is an attempt to communicate the idea that some things are out of our control and can only be accepted/tolerated/endured. Similarly "it is what it is" means that the subject has certain characteristics, and railing against them wont change that.conmag9 said:Most "wise" sayings that are simply tautologies. "What will be, will be" and "It is what it is" come up frequently. I call them out just about every time.
"Could care less" instead of "couldn't care less" is another one that drives me to frustration faster than a race car with rocket jets.
There are others, no doubt. Especially the needlessly dramatic statements people often make over little things, but those aren't specific phrases so much as archetypes for phrases.
Now, it's perfectly possible to argue against those statements. Why should we accept things as they are? How can we be sure we can do nothing? But just because they aren't necessarily right doesn't mean they are meaningless. (You could argue that something can't be wrong unless it has meaning: "fhaglhg" isn't wrong because it isn't actually a statement of anything, just gibberish)
I direct you to Newton's Third Law:Meriatressia said:PC master race.
The total and utter cretins who use this obviously never saw the zero punctuation video it came from.
Were it was very clearly used to insult pc elitists.
Apparently the idiots who use it are so thick they don't get it.
And they never heard of the association with nazism that the words 'master race' has.
I dislike arguments against free speech that are based around the fact that the first amendment only protects you from the American government arresting you for the use of said free speech. Firstly, it's incredibly Americo-centric. There are over 6.5 billion none-Americans in the world that aren't protected by the FA. Should I, as a Brit, have a right to free speech? If you think so, as I do, then the right clearly goes beyond the particular wording of the FA.Scars Unseen said:
Not necessarily. Merely that you should fall under the same processes as the American counterpart.Suhi89 said:I dislike arguments against free speech that are based around the fact that the first amendment only protects you from the American government arresting you for the use of said free speech. Firstly, it's incredibly Americo-centric. There are over 6.5 billion none-Americans in the world that aren't protected by the FA. Should I, as a Brit, have a right to free speech? If you think so, as I do, then the right clearly goes beyond the particular wording of the FA.
The second you come into death threats, free speech no longer protects you because it's considered harassment. People keep quiet because there are limits to how well the law can protect you, as well as general PR.Suhi89 said:More significantly, it ignores the fact that there are myriad ways to stifle free speech that don't involve the state getting involved. You don't need a law against drawing Muhammad or writing novels that some Muslims find offensive if people are fearful enough. Most newspapers wouldn't print the Danish cartoons, not because of the threat of legal ramifications but because of death threats.
People who lose their jobs over PR nightmares tend to be in positions that require them having good PR. Getting kicked out of your place of residence unless you have caused a disturbance is a big no-no for the owners, as per the law that would leave them open to legal and civil liabilities.Suhi89 said:You don't need a law against blasphemy if someone who blasphemes loses their jobs, is evicted from their property and shunned by society for doing it. That person's free speech is infringed just as much as if it was the state doing the infringement.
Precisely.Suhi89 said:Just because you have the legal right to say that you don't think that God exists, doesn't mean you have the right to avoid the social consequences.
There are laws against discrimination, which that would be directly violating. That includes religious grounds and racial grounds alike. Additionally, you can't be kicked out for opinions either unless you cause a massive disturbance.Suhi89 said:You don't need a law against mixed race couples if no landlord will allow you to rent, or no owner will allow you to buy, or no employer will allow you work for them if you are part of one.Just because you have the legal freedom to marry a black woman, doesn't mean you have the freedom to avoid the social consequences of doing so, surely.
Plus you really shouldn't need to tell people that you're not a racist/homophobe/whatever. Not being racist/homophobic/whatever is kind of the default state for most civilised people. It's like "Nobody said you were a racist, why did you feel the need to bring that up?"tippy2k2 said:I'm not a "Fill in the Blank" BUT...
Anytime anyone has ever said this in the history of anything, they go on to explain a viewpoint completely in line with "Fill in the Blank"
For example:
I'm not sexist BUT (followed by an incredibly sexist viewpoint)
I'm not racist BUT (followed by an incredibly racist remark)
I'm not a homophobe BUT (followed by something incredibly homophobic)
I'm not a serial killer BUT I did just kill a bunch of people
You adding "But" to the middle of your sentence does not make whatever you're about to say less racist/sexist/homophobic/stupid
To be honest this is the first (and only place) I have seen/heard it before.Qizx said:Then you are quite possibly one of the most innocent people I've ever run across. I am shaking my head trying to figure out how it would refer to the quality of work.
I always thought they actually meant "double-bladed sword", with another blade sticking out from the back of the hilt (think Darth Maul's lightsaber). That would make sense, since it would be rather impractical.Llil said:"It's a double-edged sword" when used to mean something that's both good and bad. It makes no sense. A sword that has two edges is more dangerous to the target, because it can cut both on the forward stroke and the back stroke without having to turn the weapon around. If anything, it should mean "bad and worse", as the sword cuts both ways.
First of all, maybe the person you're talking to doesn't want to be perfectly honest and forthcoming with you. People are often intentionally vague about something because they just don't want to get into it.StormDragonZ said:"I Think"
If you ask someone how they are doing today, and answer with anything including I Think, then are you telling me you're not sure how you're doing right now? You either know or you don't!
"A double-bladed sword" would be better. That's not what people say, though. Maybe people don't really know the difference between the blade and the edge, or maybe they just don't think about the prase at all and simply use it as it is. But it's still annoying.Major_Tom said:I always thought they actually meant "double-bladed sword", with another blade sticking out from the back of the hilt (think Darth Maul's lightsaber). That would make sense, since it would be rather impractical.Llil said:"It's a double-edged sword" when used to mean something that's both good and bad. It makes no sense. A sword that has two edges is more dangerous to the target, because it can cut both on the forward stroke and the back stroke without having to turn the weapon around. If anything, it should mean "bad and worse", as the sword cuts both ways.
Related to this: "God has a plan" or really any such phrase uttered by people who seem to have pretty much given up thinking for them selves because of some 2000 year old, and horribly out dated book.Happyninja42 said:"That was God working through you."