4 ms·

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 th

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 11y 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 11y ago
  >So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names? I don't object to that either?
  - hartpuff 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.

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 11y 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 11y ago
>So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "whimsical" names? I don't object to that either?
- hartpuff 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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.