4 ms·

Is it just $300 million scientific research vessels that should be given deliberately stupid names (that even the originator disowns), or everything?

aninhumer 10y ago
What? I said objecting to the name is childish. That doesn't mean I think everything should have whimsical names, and I really don't know how you interpreted that from what I said?
- hartpuff 10y ago
  Did I say you said everything should have whimsical names? I asked if that is what you thought. Can't you tell the difference? So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names? I don't object to that either?
    - hartpuff 10y ago
      My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time. Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name? To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't. (Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)
        carc 10y ago
        Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.
        aninhumer 10y ago
        Yes that's how I read it, and it is a false dichotomy, because not thinking something should be the case is not the same as thinking it shouldn't be the case. They're both value judgements of which I make neither.
      - simplemath 10y ago
        Are you by chance on the committee that is naming this boat? If not, you'd be an excellent committee member. You'd be a total hit at committees.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
When you allow the public to chose a name for a research vessel, it's inoffensive, popular and creates more media coverage (arguably the goal of having the vote) then no matter how whimsical you think the name is you should stick with it. If you don't want whimsy, don't ask the British public to name your ship. No one forced them in to the situation. FWIW I don't find the name stupid, one person's humour is another's stupidity I guess.
- hartpuff 10y ago
  I agree that it's totally stupid to use online voting, that is just asking to be hijacked, and I almost believe that they should have to eat the result as a punishment. Almost. Hopefully it's a lesson for them not to ask The Internet its opinion again.

aninhumer 10y ago

What? I said objecting to the name is childish. That doesn't mean I think everything should have whimsical names, and I really don't know how you interpreted that from what I said?

hartpuff 10y ago
Did I say you said everything should have whimsical names? I asked if that is what you thought. Can't you tell the difference? So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names? I don't object to that either?
  - hartpuff 10y ago
    My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time. Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name? To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't. (Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)
      - carc 10y ago
        Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.
        aninhumer 10y ago
        Yes that's how I read it, and it is a false dichotomy, because not thinking something should be the case is not the same as thinking it shouldn't be the case. They're both value judgements of which I make neither.
    - simplemath 10y ago
      Are you by chance on the committee that is naming this boat? If not, you'd be an excellent committee member. You'd be a total hit at committees.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

When you allow the public to chose a name for a research vessel, it's inoffensive, popular and creates more media coverage (arguably the goal of having the vote) then no matter how whimsical you think the name is you should stick with it. If you don't want whimsy, don't ask the British public to name your ship. No one forced them in to the situation. FWIW I don't find the name stupid, one person's humour is another's stupidity I guess.

hartpuff 10y ago
I agree that it's totally stupid to use online voting, that is just asking to be hijacked, and I almost believe that they should have to eat the result as a punishment. Almost. Hopefully it's a lesson for them not to ask The Internet its opinion again.