There are many webpages and books devoted to the good old "why did the chicken cross the road?" question. Of course, there was really only one true answer: The chicken was a free roaming chicken protected by local law living in Key West, Florida, that wandered about seeking food and doing as it liked because that is how chickens behave. Any other explanations are anthropomorphic or absurd. However, one cannot discount the chicken's interest in getting to the other side of the road as an underlying motive.
But, this thread is NOT about chickens and crossing roads. No! This thread is about all of the other possibilities of motivation and impulse that might be explored. For instance?
Why did the tennis ball cross the net? Was it possibly because it enjoyed being served? Or, was that serviced? No, served would have to be right, if the tennis ball actually had free will, which it does not. The tennis ball crossed the net because a tennis player swung a racket and hit it across. I'm sure you get the point now.
So, "Why did the . . . . ?"
Originally posted by coquetteWhy did the normally sane chess player join IVV?
There are many webpages and books devoted to the good old "why did the chicken cross the road?" question. Of course, there was really only one true answer: The chicken was a free roaming chicken protected by local law living in Key West, Florida, that wandered about seeking food and doing as it liked because that is how chickens behave. Any other explanatio ...[text shortened]... acket and hit it across. I'm sure you get the point now.
So, "Why did the . . . . ?"
Originally posted by GastelNow, see, there you go . . .another logical fallacy. "normally sane" is an oxymoron. What you meant to ask: why did the chess player who generally appeared to behave within standard cultural norms choose to ruin his life by losing his job and family and, for all practical purposes, social contact with his community?
Why did the normally sane chess player join IVV?
The answer, of course, needn't actually be stated to anyone who actually registered for RHP and read this thread; however, as a reflective exercise, a "true" answer might be instructive: people often fall into addictions quite innocently. chess is revered as an intellectual exercise that offers many valuable insights into other areas, including, for instances, business and military strategies. However, as everyone who is reading this knows, chess involves the brain in a highly charged activity. Some may not realize that much of the brain activity triggers pleasure centers in the amygdala (incidentally, only, Greek for almond). ANY activity that creates a deep sense of pleasure places the individual at risk for addiction. Sometimes it's drugs, sometimes gambling, sometimes sex . .. . and .. .sometimes . .chess.
The problem mainly is that the chessplayer views her addiction as harmless: no disease, no violence, no loss of savings, no . . .risk at all. It's that loss of perception of risk that is the insane part, isn't it?
Originally posted by FabianFnasSure, not bad. Could there be nuances though? For instance, why did was the flounder hesitant?
Is this appropriate?
Why did the flounder take his girlfriend over the canal?
To see her on the other side, of course.
Because she was foundering and a poor speller. (No, doesn't work at all.)
Why would a flounder make a great republican president?
No answer need be written, of course.
Why aren't flounders good critical thinkers?
See above. (Pun intended)
I like the concept.
Originally posted by coquettewhy did the moron start this thread?
There are many webpages and books devoted to the good old "why did the chicken cross the road?" question. Of course, there was really only one true answer: The chicken was a free roaming chicken protected by local law living in Key West, Florida, that wandered about seeking food and doing as it liked because that is how chickens behave. Any other explanatio ...[text shortened]... acket and hit it across. I'm sure you get the point now.
So, "Why did the . . . . ?"
because he's a moron
Originally posted by rubberjaw30well, the "moron" is a she, but that's not the point. the "moron" started the thread because she thought that it might be fun and interesting. she also knew that certain visitors would say something really rude and demeaning. she thought that she was ready for it, but being called a moron seems a little bit . um . . . gee . . . not right. is this thread REALLY moronic? I'll take the common opinion as truth.
why did the moron start this thread?
because he's a moron
Vote moronic or not moronic. If the majority says moronic, then i'll accept the common wisdom (if that is what it is).
Why did the alleged moron want to take a poll regarding her moronity? (yes that's a word, and so is moronism: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron)
Could it be because of the reason stated (to determine the common wisdom)? Or could it perhaps stem from a past trauma related to the term "moron"? And what is the use of such a poll? If the consensus is that she is indeed a moron, does that not mean that her poll idea was moronic? Perhaps, then, the result was moronic as well, which means that she is in fact not a moron. And how could one know for sure whether or not those participating in the poll were moronic themselves? Would that not discredit the whole exercise? Also, the alleged moron claims, " ...i'll accept the common wisdom..." Is that not the very opposite of what a moron is? How could a moron not only seek but also accept the common wisdom? Therefore coquette cannot be a moron. But wait! If coquette is not a moron, then she would probably know that such a poll would be useless (for reasons stated above). Why, then, did coquette propose such a ridiculous solution? One cannot propose a useless idea, unless of course the proposer is indeed a moron. Therefore coquette must be a moron. This leads to a paradoxical enigma that may require further study before a definite solution is reached. While you're waiting, answer this:
Why was the lucky rabbit's-foot not lucky enough for the rabbit to avoid the loss of its foot?
Originally posted by JirakonOh, my, Coquette, I'm sure you didn't foresee these turns..
Why did the alleged moron want to take a poll regarding her moronity? (yes that's a word, and so is moronism: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron)
Could it be because of the reason stated (to determine the common wisdom)? Or could it perhaps stem from a past trauma related to the term "moron"? And what is the use of such a poll? If the ...[text shortened]... s the lucky rabbit's-foot not lucky enough for the rabbit to avoid the loss of its foot?
I know why the rooster crossed the road.
To see a man lay bricks.
Originally posted by JirakonAlas, Jirakon has it exactly right. This thread was an exercise in critical thinking, an exploration of the inherent conflict between the abstract and the absurd, and how conflicting ideas can be held at the same time, resulting in both a glimps of universal wisdom and humor simultaneously.
Why did the alleged moron want to take a poll regarding her moronity? (yes that's a word, and so is moronism: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moron)
Could it be because of the reason stated (to determine the common wisdom)? Or could it perhaps stem from a past trauma related to the term "moron"? And what is the use of such a poll? If the ...[text shortened]... s the lucky rabbit's-foot not lucky enough for the rabbit to avoid the loss of its foot?
As to both questions: the questions are moronic, as are the answers . . .that does not lead to being able to determine the moronicity of the prinicpal author, however, if the principal author, I, should accept "common wisdom" as a determination of my moronicity, or not whatever, then that would be moronic . . Well done!
Now, as to the rabbit's foot . .. . good heavens! the RABBIT wasn't lucky! it was the person who killed the rabbit and got to eat meat that day that was lucky. keeping the foot was possibly a remnant from another era where the youth might keep his "first kill" . . .an artifact of coming of age, so to speak.
Originally posted by SmookiePOh, SmookieP, why you HAVE fallen into to the anthropomorphic trap. it IS amusing to humans to think that a chicken might cross the road to see a human "lay" bricks, but really, we cannot assign such a motive to a chicken, true or not.
Oh, my, Coquette, I'm sure you didn't foresee these turns..
I know why the rooster crossed the road.
To see a man lay bricks.
on the other hand, there was this construction site on my walk to school when i was 14 and lots of us girls actually did go one block out of our way and crossed a road to see a man lay bricks . . .WAIT! i heard one of them say . . ."Look, here comes the chicks!" NO OMG . .I get IT NOW . . .YOU ARE RIGHT! you have the BEST ANSWER of all so far . . . damn, too bad you are with that awful clan (giggle)
way to go SmookieP! well done.