Annoying aphorisms

[Killer Angel]

Quotes and aphorisms are often made in a humorous way. The best ones, are smart, witty, and contain some truth.
But there are some aphorisms that, although funny at a first glance, on a second thought they appear stupid and, in the end, they irk you.

For example, I'll pick one from Mark Twain (even if the first attribution is uncertain).
"I would choose Heaven for climate but Hell for company"

Really, Mark? Yeah, I know that girls can't resist "bad boys" and good guys can be boring... but I'm sorry, in Hell you won’t find James Dean, you’ll meet Jeffrey Dhamer. :smallannoyed:


So... what are the ones that you cannot endure?

[Aedilred]

There are many that annoy me, but this one jumped to the front of the queue:

"It's always darkest just before the dawn."

Firstly, it isn't. Secondly, it has confirmation bias written all over it. Whenever I hear it it makes me want to punch someone.

[Serpentine]

It turns out that I like Captain America as a character a lot more than I expected I would. But there's one quote of his that gets thrown around a lot, and it bothers me. The same sentiment turns up in a lot of other places, too, but this is the only specific quote of it I can think of:

"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move.""

That's great. That's nice. It's a good, affirming sentiment... as long as you're one of the good guys. What if your "river of truth" is that puppies exist to be kicked and homeless people are delicious? For every Rosa Parks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks), there's an Anders Behring Breivik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik) - and how many can know for sure which we are, especially if we hold to the aforementioned aphorism? It's not enough just to stand by what you believe is right; you need to be constantly reassessing your belief to ensure it really is right. And idealism bedamned, the reality is that a lot of the time the best way to create real lasting change is through a series of compromises.

[Devils_Advocate]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is one saying that I've seen criticized for being... well, the opposite of true. Things never observed are, as a general rule, less likely to exist than observed things. It should be "Absence of proof is not proof of absence".

[razark]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is one saying that I've seen criticized for being... well, the opposite of true. Things never observed are, as a general rule, less likely to exist than observed things. It should be "Absence of proof is not proof of absence".
Strictly speaking, it is true. I look around my cubicle, and I see no evidence of Jupiter. That does not mean that I should conclude that Jupiter does not exist.

"Absence of evidence where one should expect to find evidence is evidence of absence" is more accurate, though. If I were to find no massive object between Mars and Saturn, no cluster of moons, no Trojan asteroids at the Lagrangian points, and no gravitational effect on other orbits, I could use that absence of evidence to point out the absence of Jupiter.

[Jay R]

In Men in Black, Kay explodes one of the most annoying aphorisms.

Jay:Well, it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Kay: (Disgusted) Try it.

[Dimonite]

"It takes one to know one". Not only is it STUPIDLY untrue, it's the worst comeback ever, because you are admitting that what the other person said about you is true.

[Traab]

"It takes one to know one". Not only is it STUPIDLY untrue, it's the worst comeback ever, because you are admitting that what the other person said about you is true.

Bah, no it isnt, its saying, "the only way what you said about me is true, is if it applies to you as well. The ball is in your court now goober. Are we both that?" Basically forcing the guy who made the first comment decide if he wants to take the same hit just for the chance to land an insult on you. Not that it actually works that way, as you said, its probably in the top 5 dumbest come backs, only outdone by "Nuh UH!" or, "No YOU!" Ranks just a bit higher than "yo momma!" Because at least yo momma has a chance of annoying the other guy. Trust me, I have done extensive research in the science of come backs. Its a result of spending my school years 6 inches shorter and 90 pounds lighter than everyone else. While wearing glasses.

[Killer Angel]

"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move.""

That's great. That's nice. It's a good, affirming sentiment... as long as you're one of the good guys. What if your "river of truth" is that puppies exist to be kicked and homeless people are delicious? For every Rosa Parks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks), there's an Anders Behring Breivik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik) - and how many can know for sure which we are, especially if we hold to the aforementioned aphorism? It's not enough just to stand by what you believe is right; you need to be constantly reassessing your belief to ensure it really is right.

Indeed.
'til you're playing a Paladin, that a nice quote, but usually, if the whole world is telling you to move, maybe it's time to question yourself. :smalltongue:

[Tebryn]

Indeed.
'til you're playing a Paladin, that a nice quote, but usually, if the whole world is telling you to move, maybe it's time to question yourself. :smalltongue:

Bull. The world is entitled to it's own opinions but not it's own facts. If you know something is right and true, regardless of what you're told you hold your ground. Invoking mass murderers against those who stood up against oppression is just simply ridiculous and fallacious at it's very premise.

[Zrak]

While Serpentine picked pretty agreeable examples to make a point, the divide between mass-murderer freedom fighter standing up against oppression is often not so clear as people like to believe. To draw an example from Order of the Stick, consider the various fan interpretations of Redcloak.

[Tebryn]

While Serpentine picked pretty agreeable examples to make a point, the divide between mass-murderer freedom fighter standing up against oppression is often not so clear as people like to believe. To draw an example from Order of the Stick, consider the various fan interpretations of Redcloak.

Sadly, addressing this to far would go way far into Politics and Religion. I'll leave it at equating a mass murderer to a peaceful demonstrator against oppression reeks of false equivalence and sweeping generalizations.

[Silver Swift]

Bull. The world is entitled to it's own opinions but not it's own facts. If you know something is right and true, regardless of what you're told you hold your ground. Invoking mass murderers against those who stood up against oppression is just simply ridiculous and fallacious at it's very premise.

And you are also only entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. If the entire world is against you, then either you are wrong or the world is wrong and before you start planting yourself besides the river of truth and stuff you should do some real honest self assessing to make sure it isn't you. Then if you still believe you are right you can go tell the world to move, but Serpentines point (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is that a lot of people skip over that first step.

Edit:

Sadly, addressing this to far would go way far into Politics and Religion. I'll leave it at equating a mass murderer to a peaceful demonstrator against oppression reeks of false equivalence and sweeping generalizations.

That is nice and all, but the point is that there are plenty of mass murderers that would feel that this quote applies to them. Also, I don't remember the exact context of the quote but I'm fairly sure captain America wasn't advocating peaceful demonstrations when he said it.

[Zrak]

Back to the more general topic, I've always been annoyed by any variation of the "you can't love another until you learn to love yourself" formula. Trite, condescending, wrong, and consequently terrible.

[Serpentine]

Bull. The world is entitled to it's own opinions but not it's own facts. If you know something is right and true, regardless of what you're told you hold your ground. Invoking mass murderers against those who stood up against oppression is just simply ridiculous and fallacious at it's very premise.It doesn't have to be a mass murderer. It can be anything. There are a large number of issues that I, for example, stand beside as my Truth, and that millions of others stand by the opposite of theirs. All those things you know as"right and true", does the same advice hold for the people who believe the opposite to you? Or do you think they should be more flexible and carefully consider other views? If so, why doesn't that apply to you? Why is your Truth the one that is Right regardless of what anyone else says? A lot of truly terrible things have been done in the name of Truth Despite The World, and even more merely bad things.
The point is, I suppose, is that if that aphorism applies to what you believe is right, it applies to everyone else too. And where does that get us? All of us standing our ground against the "oppression" of everyone else and going nowhere.

[Tebryn]

On second thought...probably best I just step away from this. Nothing good is going to come of it.

[Zrak]

The post I quoted was removed, so I've removed my own post out of respect for that decision.

[Kalmarvho]

"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."

The problem, of course, is that Steve takes the quote out of context.

“‎In a republic, who is the ‘country’? Is it the government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the government is merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not to originate them. Who, then, is ‘the country’? Is it the newspaper? Is it the pulpit? Why these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command.
In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country; in a republic, it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. It is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of the pulpit, press, government, or the empty catchphrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man.

To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country. Hold up your head, you have nothing to be ashamed of.

Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world—No, you move.”
— Mark Twain, Papers of the Adams Family, 1939

[Serpentine]

Mm... The "river of truth" bit at the end still sorta runs askance to the rest of it which seems to eschew the idea of an objective truth.
But like I said, the same thing is said in different words all over the place. And basically the problem with it, as an aphorism, is this: it applies to everyone, or it applies to noone. There are a lot of strong beliefs out there; not all of them can be right, not all of them are good, and certainly they're not all equal, but this assumes it's easy and objectively possible to tell them apart. The problem is, "everyone" includes a lot of people everyone strongly disagrees with.

[Eldariel]

Mm... The "river of truth" bit at the end still sorta runs askance to the rest of it which seems to eschew the idea of an objective truth.
But like I said, the same thing is said in different words all over the place. And basically the problem with it, as an aphorism, is this: it applies to everyone, or it applies to noone. There are a lot of strong beliefs out there; not all of them can be right, not all of them are good, and certainly they're not all equal, but this assumes it's easy and objectively possible to tell them apart. The problem is, "everyone" includes a lot of people everyone strongly disagrees with.

I always understood it more as "Stand behind your own beliefs", which really has nothing wrong in and of itself. Sure, there are different beliefs and sure, conflict is inevitable but if people don't stand behind their beliefs (if they do trust in said beliefs), then they lose all agency to make a difference.

I don't think conflict in and of itself is bad and indeed, since there are so many different values around the world it's inevitable no matter what, so I don't think the aphorism itself is wrong. If anything, our methods of solving conflicts are at the fault.

[Mauve Shirt]

Besides, it's simpler to stand up for good and right beliefs if there's a mass murderer standing up for his own beliefs. All you have to do in order to stand by your beliefs is punch him in the face!

[Weimann]

I don't know if it works this way in English, but in Swedish, there's this one expression. Let me show an illustrating example.

Me and a friend is walking through the place where we work during summers. Then, it's a tourist and party island. Now, during winter, it's a slumbering fishing village in an age where fishing villages are going extinct.
Me: "Damn, there's no one around at all."
Him: "Such a difference between summer and winter."
Me: "It usually so packed." *points along the waterside board walk*
Him: "It's not even comparable."

In this case, what he means is that the difference is staggering. But I've always been annoyed by the expression. Yes, you can very well compare it. In fact, you just did.

I will accept that there are things you can't compare. For example, comparing length with, say, voltage isn't meaningful. "This stick is as long as the voltage of this electrical outlet." It doesn't make sense. But comparing the population from one point in time to another? Yeah, it's in fact fully, and even meaningfully, comparable.

[Traab]

"Its like comparing apples and oranges" You can actually come up with quite a long list of comparisons between the two, so I dont see why this is used to refer to something being pointless.

*EDIT* My main problem with the "you move" line is that it REEKS of arrogance and hubris. I mean holy crud, "It doesnt matter that every person in the world disagrees with me, Im right, 2+2=3, and they all need to deal with that fact."

[Serpentine]

I always understood it more as "Stand behind your own beliefs", which really has nothing wrong in and of itself. Sure, there are different beliefs and sure, conflict is inevitable but if people don't stand behind their beliefs (if they do trust in said beliefs), then they lose all agency to make a difference.

I don't think conflict in and of itself is bad and indeed, since there are so many different values around the world it's inevitable no matter what, so I don't think the aphorism itself is wrong. If anything, our methods of solving conflicts are at the fault.Aside from, well, that, from Traab, I just can't help that the person saying it is attaching an "...if you believe the same things as me" to it. You're not going to hear someone saying "well, I and everyone I know is steadfastly against puppy-kicking. But hey, if you truly believe that that's the right thing to do, you absolutely tell us "no, you move"!"
So, the first part of that extended quote seems to me to be saying that if you truly believe that puppies should be kicked, then you should make sure that you voice that view and make sure it's heard. Then, when the Puppy Protection (Anti-Kicking) Bill goes through, you can hold your head high in the knowledge that you did your democratic duty and participated in the dialogue that came to that decision, even if it didn't go your way. But the River of Truth bit (and the otherly worded variations of it) seems to be changing that to be that when it doesn't go your way, you should keep on shouting and fighting and go right ahead and kick those puppies, because it's everyone else's job to change, not yours.
Now, replace puppy-kicking with puppy-patting, and that sentiment sounds great! Who doesn't like puppies? If I were in some bizarre parallel universe where everyone went around kicking puppies, I'd absolutely stand up and tell everyone they needed to change! But as soon as it's applied to something you don't agree with... It's not so simple then, is it.

...

I may be overthinking this somewhat.

So, as a change of pace: I don't think I've ever seen a cloud with a silver lining. Is it referring to that thin halo-like glow you sometimes see around clouds when the sun's behind it?

[Traab]

That will fly like a lead balloon! As Mythbusters proved, lead balloons can actually fly. You also CAN in fact, polish a turd, they can get rather shiny in fact, a bull in a china shop could be just fine unless you panic it, as they are surprisingly agile, and im sure a half dozen other sayings that have been proven to be incorrect.

[Elemental]

So, as a change of pace: I don't think I've ever seen a cloud with a silver lining. Is it referring to that thin halo-like glow you sometimes see around clouds when the sun's behind it?

Yes. That is exactly what they meant.

[Serpentine]

But it's not silver. It's white at best, and not all clouds have it :C

[Elemental]

Well... In heraldry, white is referred to as Argent...
Anyway... It's silver in that it shines. And the significance is it is the cloud that blocks the Sun.

[GolemsVoice]

The saying: "Every cloud has a white-ish lining, but maybe more.. translucent? Well you know when the sun shines through the clouds? Well every cloud has such a thing." just doesn't sound nearly as appealing.

And the saying about apples and oranges: I always understood it as meaning that the comparison in question doesn't make sense in the context, namely because the things are so unlike each other (which, admittedly, works better with summer and winter). For example, somebody comes and says: "I don't like OotS, because it's not at all like Warhammer 40k." It's a meaningful comparison, sure, because even the fact that two things are totally unlike is a comparison, but he wants OotS to be something that it won't and can't be. Like being angry that apples aren't oranges.

[Ravens_cry]

"You are Unique, Just Like Everyone Else."
Bonus points if they mean it seriously.:smallyuk:

[warty goblin]

"You are Unique, Just Like Everyone Else."
Bonus points if they mean it seriously.:smallyuk:

While I find the sentiment annoying, technically there is nothing wrong with it.

[Decatus]

While I find the sentiment annoying, technically there is nothing wrong with it.


The problem is that if everyone is unique, uniqueness loses meaning. If everyone is unique, everyone has something in common. Not to mention the fact that I've never met a truly unique person (if anyone has, I'd be very interested in meeting them). We're all human. We all buy our clothes and food from one of what, like 3 mega-corperations? We all like food, and shelter, and we all need air, etc.

So, to me, telling someone they're "unique, just like everyone else," is actually kind of insulting. You're just saying that they're one insignificant number right next to the other7,021,836,029 human beings on this planet.

[Silkspinner]

In Men in Black, Kay explodes one of the most annoying aphorisms.

Jay:Well, it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Kay: (Disgusted) Try it.
This. Right. Here.

Omg, this right here...

[GolemsVoice]

So, to me, telling someone they're "unique, just like everyone else," is actually kind of insulting. You're just saying that they're one insignificant number right next to the other7,021,836,029 human beings on this planet.

I always thought that was the point of that saying. You're unique, yes, and yous houldn't forget that. But that doesn't mean that you, so to say, stand out from teh crowd, that this makes you something extraordinary. You're not better or worse.

Alternatively, I think it's sometimes used as an actual insult, like you said. Because they're saying that your so called "individuality" isn't all that individual. As a counter to people screaming "I'm so individual while everyone else is sheeple!".

[warty goblin]

The problem is that if everyone is unique, uniqueness loses meaning. If everyone is unique, everyone has something in common. Not to mention the fact that I've never met a truly unique person (if anyone has, I'd be very interested in meeting them). We're all human. We all buy our clothes and food from one of what, like 3 mega-corperations? We all like food, and shelter, and we all need air, etc.

So, to me, telling someone they're "unique, just like everyone else," is actually kind of insulting. You're just saying that they're one insignificant number right next to the other7,021,836,029 human beings on this planet.

Something is not unique because it has nothing in common with anything else. Then of course the set of unique things is the empty set. It is unique because nothing else is exactly like it, that is A is unique in set S there exists no B such that B = A. I'm unique in the set of all people because nobody else has my fingerprints, genetic code, or the exact same experience of last Tuesday between the hours of four and five PM.

What's annoying (at least to me) about the statement 'everyone is unique' isn't that it's meaningless, it's that it doesn't mean what people want it to. Because it's usually used as a less dopey proxy for 'everyone is special,' which is manifestly not true. Special implies possessing some outstanding attribute or talent, which not everyone does.

[Razgriez]

"You Only Live Once", aka "YOLO", whose original phrase goes as far back if not further, to 1774, as the line: "one lives but once in the world".

It once meant "Go out, and live life to it's fullest". Now it's used as an excuse to be trashy, rude, stupid, etc. :smallannoyed:

Perhaps, the crowning proof that the message has been ruined, comes about of the story from California, where a 21 year old was driving with 4 others while intoxicated, AND driving at 120 MPH, AND texting on twitter about it and used the infamous "YOLO" line as an excuse. Sadly unsurprisingly, his "YOLO" moment led to him crashing, and killing himself and his 4 friends.

[Mordar]

"It is what it is."

At best, a waste of 5 words, even if they're short ones. At worst, a pitiful defense of either a "bad' status quo or an injustice, or a statement of apathy.

Though dated, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Roughly translated, "I don't want to accept any responsibility, and I don't want other people to think poorly of me for taking advantage/gaming the system/being a waste of flesh, so I'll suggest that it isn't my fault, it is actually the fault of the establishment.

Oh, and only because it is so often mis-stated: "I could care less."

When used correctly ("couldn't"), I have no issue with it...but that so seldom happens these days. All you damn slackers get off my lawn.

- M

[Killer Angel]

The problem is that if everyone is unique, uniqueness loses meaning.

Move the reasoning just a little step forward, and you'll have Syndrome... :smallbiggrin:


I've got also some issue on the "better to live one day as a lion than 100 as sheep".

[Ravens_cry]

"You Only Live Once", aka "YOLO", whose original phrase goes as far back if not further, to 1774, as the line: "one lives but once in the world".

It once meant "Go out, and live life to it's fullest". Now it's used as an excuse to be trashy, rude, stupid, etc. :smallannoyed:

Perhaps, the crowning proof that the message has been ruined, comes about of the story from California, where a 21 year old was driving with 4 others while intoxicated, AND driving at 120 MPH, AND texting on twitter about it and used the infamous "YOLO" line as an excuse. Sadly unsurprisingly, his "YOLO" moment led to him crashing, and killing himself and his 4 friends.
Yeah, YOLO makes my blood boil-o.:smallmad:

[Dimonite]

"Sweating like a pig" has always bothered me - PIGS HAVE NO SWEAT GLANDS. Also, "eat like a bird" shouldn't mean "not eating much"; most birds eat several times their own weight in food every day.

[Traab]

"Sweating like a pig" has always bothered me - PIGS HAVE NO SWEAT GLANDS. Also, "eat like a bird" shouldn't mean "not eating much"; most birds eat several times their own weight in food every day.

If I was eating like a hummingbird, I would probably go through 1000 cans of soda a day.

[razark]

If you tell me that you "slept like a baby", you are telling me that you woke up screaming every couple of hours.

[Zrak]

Oh, and only because it is so often mis-stated: "I could care less."

When used correctly ("couldn't"), I have no issue with it...but that so seldom happens these days. All you damn slackers get off my lawn.

While, generally, people probably intended the meaning associated with "couldn't," I'd argue that "could" is honestly probably more correct. I mean, the fact that they bothered to respond at all indicates that they could have cared even less.


It once meant "Go out, and live life to it's fullest". Now it's used as an excuse to be trashy, rude, stupid, etc. :smallannoyed:

It's always been an excuse to be trashy, rude, stupid, &c., it's just that language used to be more flowery. The message hasn't been ruined, it's just been turned into an obnoxious acronym.

Also, you guys understand aphorisms aren't meant to express facts to be taken literally, but metaphorical analogies to be applied to other situations, right?

EDIT: For that matter, it's worth noting that not all common similes count as aphorisms, since this thread is apparently under the impression that they do. It's curious that the people mocking the phrases on the basis of scuritinizing them for inaccuracies in very literal interpretations that the phrases weren't intended to have should, apparently, fail to do any research whatsoever as to the nature of aphorisms. Pigs don't have sweat glands, sure, but that's not an aphorism, either.

[MoonCat]

"It takes two to tango"

The last resort of adults who want to act impartial by claiming it's the fault of the bullied kid as well as the bullies. Evil justification of inaction that was one of the reasons I nearly went insane in my old school.

Along with that, "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." God, that one pisses me off.

[Tengu_temp]

"Great minds think alike" - to me it sounds like "you're totally awesome, but I'm awesome too". Brown-nosing and gloating at once.

"There is a thin line between genius and madness" - I usually seen it as a defense of some annoying **** acting in a nerve-grating, pseudo-crazy "I'm so random lol" way, raised by the friends of the **** in question.

"Boys will be boys" - often seen as an excuse to brush off douchebag behaviour like bullying, bigotry et cetera as harmless stuff.

"Humans are herd/pack animals" - also known as "why are you a loner with just a few friends instead of surrounding yourself with a whole yapping flock like me? You're weird". No further comment necessary.

[warty goblin]

Ooh, my personal least favorite: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'

It combines all the best attributes of demonstrable falsehood and victim fetishization into one useless package.

I'm also not really fond of this one:
"They don't make them like they used to." Yes, this is why I can afford more than one shirt, and the flour doesn't have sand in it.

I am rather fond of a couple though. "Useless as tits on a boar" is just excellent, if only to watch the faces of people not familiar with it. They're on conversational autopilot until 'tits' at which point they start paying a lot of attention.

[Aedilred]

Oh, and only because it is so often mis-stated: "I could care less."

When used correctly ("couldn't"), I have no issue with it...but that so seldom happens these days. All you damn slackers get off my lawn.
Oh, good grief yes. I've only noticed people getting it wrong recently (in the last couple of years or so) but it's now all over the place. Every time I see/hear it I start grinding my teeth.

[Razgriez]

Ooh, my personal least favorite: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'

It combines all the best attributes of demonstrable falsehood and victim fetishization into one useless package.

Agreed. I think Murphy's Laws of Combat, had one rule which is a much better example than that, I believe it says: "A Chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down."

Hmmm, which one am I going to take more seriously? The one said by a bunch of people trying to act tough, or the cynical, wry and morbidly sarcastic one made up by a bunch of people who know that what doesn't kill you is more likely to leave you horribly injured and suffering in some way for the rest of your life. I think I'll go with avoiding death and permanent injury where logically possible, thank you very much.

[Aedilred]

I don't have such a problem with "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". A lot of the time it's true. It's the principle on which vaccines work, after all. Pushing yourself to the limits of physical capacity hurts like hell, but you'll be stronger for it. And until psychology really developed as a field, it was (and, tbh, is) widely held that a strict, difficult upbringing makes you better-equipped to handle the world.

Of course, crippling physical injury, heart attacks, strokes, various other medical conditions that weaken without killing, and lifelong emotional trauma caused by nonfatal incidents suggest that it's not always applicable.

I think, to be honest, it wouldn't be a problem if restricted in its use to situations where it's appropriate. If people start throwing it around willy-nilly, then, yeah, that's clearly false.

[warty goblin]

I don't have such a problem with "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". A lot of the time it's true. It's the principle on which vaccines work, after all. Pushing yourself to the limits of physical capacity hurts like hell, but you'll be stronger for it. And until psychology really developed as a field, it was (and, tbh, is) widely held that a strict, difficult upbringing makes you better-equipped to handle the world.

Of course, crippling physical injury, heart attacks, strokes, various other medical conditions that weaken without killing, and lifelong emotional trauma caused by nonfatal incidents suggest that it's not always applicable.

I think, to be honest, it wouldn't be a problem if restricted in its use to situations where it's appropriate. If people start throwing it around willy-nilly, then, yeah, that's clearly false.
I've had a fair number of injuries over my life, can't say I feel they made me stronger. Broken collarbone? That shoulder is still weaker, eight years later. Half-severed toe? Nerve damage. Second degree burns over nine sq. inches of my leg? No lasting damage aside from hair loss and some freckles, but holy crap it hurt.

About the most I can say for it is that I know these things are survivable, but I'd rather not have to. Well, the burn also taught me valuable lessons about how big blisters can get. Clearly I'm a vastly better person for it.

If the statement was something like 'you need to push yourself to uncomfortable limits to succeed' then yeah, that's fair.

[Dimonite]

"It takes two to tango"

The last resort of adults who want to act impartial by claiming it's the fault of the bullied kid as well as the bullies. Evil justification of inaction that was one of the reasons I nearly went insane in my old school.

Along with that, "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." God, that one pisses me off.

Oh good LORD yes. Our school's policy of "it takes two to tango" lead to this lovely little story: my cousin was helping to run one of those check-out things where you can take out, for example, a deck of cards and leave your school ID, which you get back when you return the cards. He refused to return one student's ID because that student didn't bring back the item he checked out. When the student proceeded to TRY TO STRANGLE my cousin, they BOTH got suspended for half a week. :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:


Ooh, my personal least favorite: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'

It combines all the best attributes of demonstrable falsehood and victim fetishization into one useless package.

I'm also not really fond of this one:
"They don't make them like they used to." Yes, this is why I can afford more than one shirt, and the flour doesn't have sand in it.

I am rather fond of a couple though. "Useless as tits on a boar" is just excellent, if only to watch the faces of people not familiar with it. They're on conversational autopilot until 'tits' at which point they start paying a lot of attention.
I'm fine with "they don't make them like they used to," because many modern products DO sacrifice quality for profit.

[Tebryn]

I'm fine with "they don't make them like they used to," because many modern products DO sacrifice quality for profit.

Ya, planned obsolescence is a thing sadly.

[Thajocoth]

For example, I'll pick one from Mark Twain (even if the first attribution is uncertain).
"I would choose Heaven for climate but Hell for company"

Really, Mark? Yeah, I know that girls can't resist "bad boys" and good guys can be boring... but I'm sorry, in Hell you won’t find James Dean, you’ll meet Jeffrey Dhamer. :smallannoyed:

Meeting Mr. Dahmer sounds interesting, honestly. I would agree with Mr. Twain, but cannot explain why here.

[Starwulf]

Tis better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all


This. Right. Here.

Omg, this right here...

I don't understand the hatred/dislike towards this statement. I'm happily married, and have been for nearly a decade. If my wife were to die tomorrow, I'd be devastated, but I would still cherish the moments I was allowed to spend with her, and I certainly wouldn't wish that I had never fallen in love at all.


I've had a fair number of injuries over my life, can't say I feel they made me stronger. Broken collarbone? That shoulder is still weaker, eight years later. Half-severed toe? Nerve damage. Second degree burns over nine sq. inches of my leg? No lasting damage aside from hair loss and some freckles, but holy crap it hurt.

About the most I can say for it is that I know these things are survivable, but I'd rather not have to. Well, the burn also taught me valuable lessons about how big blisters can get. Clearly I'm a vastly better person for it.

If the statement was something like 'you need to push yourself to uncomfortable limits to succeed' then yeah, that's fair.

I half agree and half don't agree. I guess it depends on how you interpret the saying. I fell off a 40 foot cliff nearly a decade ago. Shattered parts of my spine in such a way that it can never heal. Obviously I'm NOT physically stronger then I used to be, in fact I'm a mere fraction of the strength I used to be. However, the adversity I've faced because of it HAS made me tougher mentally. Things that would have made me fold under the stress of them when I was younger and pre-accident don't phase me nearly as much as they used to. Granted, this wasn't the case for many years after the accident, as a matter of fact I'd say it's only happened in the last few years that I really made a breakthrough out of my depression, for the longest time I wanted to kill myself just so my wife and kids could find someone else who could actually take care of them. But now? Nah, I see that that path was the way of the coward, and that it would have lead to devastation and many years of therapy for my children and probably my wife.

[Aedilred]

I don't understand the hatred/dislike towards this statement. I'm happily married, and have been for nearly a decade. If my wife were to die tomorrow, I'd be devastated, but I would still cherish the moments I was allowed to spend with her, and I certainly wouldn't wish that I had never fallen in love at all.
That is a fairly sensible attitude to take, but emotional considerations often override reason, and, to be honest, even if you think that now, I don't think you can guarantee that's actually how you'd feel if it happened. Bereavement kills people. Where one party ends the relationship, rather than having the good grace to die with it still intact, that can be extremely traumatic too.

Often, the end of a relationship can leave people vulnerable to things that wouldn't be a problem if they'd never entered the relationship in the first place. I know a number of people who have essentially sworn off romantic liaisons indefinitely after the end of a relationship because that was so difficult they can't face the prospect of going through it again, and the end of the relationship has ultimately poisoned any "happy" memories they have from it.

When you're in that sort of position, having somebody tell you that "it's better to have loved and lost" is liable to induce rage.

[Zrak]

I don't understand the hatred/dislike towards this statement. I'm happily married, and have been for nearly a decade. If my wife were to die tomorrow, I'd be devastated, but I would still cherish the moments I was allowed to spend with her, and I certainly wouldn't wish that I had never fallen in love at all.

I mean, hypothetically, sure, but you can't really say until you've been in that situation. Not to mention that cherishing the love you had and wishing you'd never fallen in love are mutually exclusive; what is comforting at one moment could be agonizing the next.

[Starwulf]

That is a fairly sensible attitude to take, but emotional considerations often override reason, and, to be honest, even if you think that now, I don't think you can guarantee that's actually how you'd feel if it happened. Bereavement kills people. Where one party ends the relationship, rather than having the good grace to die with it still intact, that can be extremely traumatic too.

Often, the end of a relationship can leave people vulnerable to things that wouldn't be a problem if they'd never entered the relationship in the first place. I know a number of people who have essentially sworn off romantic liaisons indefinitely after the end of a relationship because that was so difficult they can't face the prospect of going through it again, and the end of the relationship has ultimately poisoned any "happy" memories they have from it.

So, in the end, while it wasn't death, it was technically a "Better to have loved and lost" type situation.

When you're in that sort of position, having somebody tell you that "it's better to have loved and lost" is liable to induce rage.

Well, I've never had the love of my life die, but I was in two separate, serious relationships before my wife, one of whom I was engaged with, and was in the process of setting a wedding date for(sometime after she finished college), when she ended up cheating on me. It was devastating, but I can safely say that I at least I could say I got a chance to experience love at all. Granted I wasn't sure I'd ever get involved in another serious relationship after that, but I certainly didn't wish that it had never happened.

[Silkspinner]

I don't understand the hatred/dislike towards this statement. I'm happily married, and have been for nearly a decade. If my wife were to die tomorrow, I'd be devastated, but I would still cherish the moments I was allowed to spend with her, and I certainly wouldn't wish that I had never fallen in love at all.
That's because you were lucky to find such a person and have such a relationship.

However, in cases of unrequited love or where your loved one betrayed you and you discover they were mostly living a lie, just to name a few circumstances, you can very easily wish you'd never met them.

[nedz]

"It is what it is."

Well "We are where we are" with this one. :smallbiggrin:

Basically these are directed at people who question why we are at a certain point, by others who are focussed on fixing the current issues.

[Killer Angel]

Ooh, my personal least favorite: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'
It combines all the best attributes of demonstrable falsehood and victim fetishization into one useless package.


It makes you stronger, unless it doesn't break your spirit, yeah.


Meeting Mr. Dahmer sounds interesting, honestly. I would agree with Mr. Twain, but cannot explain why here.

Well, for Clarice Starling, her meetings with Dr. Lecter were, in the end, interesting and instructive.
Myself, if we imagine an hell structured according to Dante’s Inferno, I would gladly enjoy the Limbo and the company of Plato and Socrates.

[Mono Vertigo]

I don't have such a problem with "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". A lot of the time it's true. It's the principle on which vaccines work, after all. Pushing yourself to the limits of physical capacity hurts like hell, but you'll be stronger for it. And until psychology really developed as a field, it was (and, tbh, is) widely held that a strict, difficult upbringing makes you better-equipped to handle the world.

Of course, crippling physical injury, heart attacks, strokes, various other medical conditions that weaken without killing, and lifelong emotional trauma caused by nonfatal incidents suggest that it's not always applicable.

I think, to be honest, it wouldn't be a problem if restricted in its use to situations where it's appropriate. If people start throwing it around willy-nilly, then, yeah, that's clearly false.
Yes. So much yes.




"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
- Anonymous

"Or paraplegic."
- boyfriend

[Kalmarvho]

enjoy the Limbo and the company of Plato and Socrates.

You need a pretty specific series of traits to land in Limbo, though.

[truemane]

Some that bug me:

"Head over heels in love." Isn't your head above your heels most of the time anyway? Heels over head in love would make more sense, if the sense of the aphorism is that love has inverted or altered your general state in some fashion.

"It's always in the last place you look for it.' Well, yeah, of course it is. Who keeps looking after they find something? Even if something is in the first place you look for it, it's still the last place.

But that's semantics. Aphorisms whose content irks me:

"Time heals all wounds." First off, it doesn't. Not at all. Second, if I'm hurting and in pain it means nothing to tell me that it'll be better someday, and in fact is more than a little demeaning.

"It could be worse." This one bugs me sometimes. Just because someone, somewhere, has it worse than me doesn't invalidate whatever struggle I'm going through. Sometimes people can benefit from a gentle reminder to get over themselves, but most of the time this aphorism is delivered in a way that's belittling and destructive, rather than constructive.

"Nothing that comes easy lasts, nothing that lasts comes easy." Like herpes? Gah. I get what you're saying, but it just ain't so.

And anything that has anything to do with anything being 'meant to be.' There's no external test for 'meant to be.' Maybe you were meant to try harder, move faster, keep at it, whatever. Or maybe not. In the absence of a control case, there's no way to know. 'Meant to be' is just a way to justify something you were going to do/not do already anyway.

[Penguinator]

Ooh, my personal least favorite: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'

In agreement with this.

And up there with that one is "pain is weakness leaving the body."

As well as "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Yes, people are mocking you because you're different than they are. How flattering.

[Kalmarvho]

As well as "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Yes, people are mocking you because you're different than they are. How flattering.

Mocking =/= imitation. That's supposed to mean you're doing something right, when someone is ripping off your style/patent/etcetera.

As usual, the problem is that people throw the phrase around all willy nilly.

[Thajocoth]

"Head over heels in love." Isn't your head above your heels most of the time anyway? Heels over head in love would make more sense, if the sense of the aphorism is that love has inverted or altered your general state in some fashion.
I've always thought that "heels over head in love" made more sense.


"It's always in the last place you look for it.' Well, yeah, of course it is. Who keeps looking after they find something? Even if something is in the first place you look for it, it's still the last place.
To correctly portray what this is supposed to mean, it should say "It's always in the last place you would've looked for it before running out of places to look." It's basically a form of Murphy's Law. I do not agree with it, I'm just clarifying it.

As someone who's life seems to abide by the inverse of Murphy's Law, I can personally vouch for the absence of any truth to any bad luck rules. Like, the number of times I've watched pouring rain turn to a light drizzle as I open a door & step out (it was a friend who first pointed out to me that this keeps happening & I've noticed it plenty since) or the number of times I start to look for something & find it right away (like the perfect job within a month of graduation, or my first gf a week after signing up for an online dating site, who was everything I needed at the time & lived about a 1-minute walking distance from me...), etc... Sure, I have an occasional bad day here & there, like anyone else, but my life is generally awesome.

[warty goblin]

Yes. So much yes.




"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
- Anonymous

"Or paraplegic."
- boyfriend
Or directly put, ever notice how people who use this phrase never ask you to break both their arms with a baseball bat or burn their homes to the ground or seduce their spouse and elope with them to the French Riviera, funding the whole thing with the speaker's credit cards?

You'd think if getting stronger was so great, we'd see lots of requests for this sort of service. I'd be happy to help, particularly with that last one.

[Traab]

The actual phrase is, "You fell head over heels in love" Basically, it hit you so hard you went tumbling all over the place. Like a somersault. So that phrase actually makes a bit of sense. As for some of the others, I find its more semantics to complain about an aphorism thats usually true but has exceptions. Sure, "No use crying over spilled milk" has an exception, if you spilled it at the checkout counter, the cashier will let you get another one! That doesnt mean the phrase itself is wrong, its just generally saying, bad stuff happens, no use dwelling on it. The last place I looked? Yeah thats a good example of a very stupid saying. As jeff foxworthy put it, "Hey fred, you find your keys yet?" "Yeah george, but I think ill just keep looking for a bit anyways."

[noparlpf]

In Men in Black, Kay explodes one of the most annoying aphorisms.

Jay:Well, it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Kay: (Disgusted) Try it.

Yeah, that one bugs me. But maybe I'm just bitter.


Back to the more general topic, I've always been annoyed by any variation of the "you can't love another until you learn to love yourself" formula. Trite, condescending, wrong, and consequently terrible.

I'm fairly certain that self esteem and romantic attraction use different circuits in the brain.


Oh, and only because it is so often mis-stated: "I could care less."

When used correctly ("couldn't"), I have no issue with it...but that so seldom happens these days. All you damn slackers get off my lawn.

- M

Ahhh that one. >:|


"Sweating like a pig" has always bothered me - PIGS HAVE NO SWEAT GLANDS.

Heh, I never knew that. Cool.


If you tell me that you "slept like a baby", you are telling me that you woke up screaming every couple of hours.

I sleep like baby me. Which is to say, I don't sleep through two hours straight. I miss that brief phase I went through between six and ten when I actually slept "like a rock".


Some that bug me:

"Head over heels in love." Isn't your head above your heels most of the time anyway? Heels over head in love would make more sense, if the sense of the aphorism is that love has inverted or altered your general state in some fashion.

I think "falling head over heels" refers to being sent tumbling or somersaulting from the speed at which one fell in love. Or something like that. I think somebody said this though.


"Time heals all wounds." First off, it doesn't. Not at all. Second, if I'm hurting and in pain it means nothing to tell me that it'll be better someday, and in fact is more than a little demeaning.

Time heals a lot of wounds. And the ones it doesn't, you just die eventually, and then they don't matter anymore anyway. But in the meantime, I wish time actually did heal all wounds. I have a crooked rib that healed wrong and it gives me trouble sometimes. Other than that, I think most of my injuries have more or less healed properly.


"It could be worse." This one bugs me sometimes. Just because someone, somewhere, has it worse than me doesn't invalidate whatever struggle I'm going through. Sometimes people can benefit from a gentle reminder to get over themselves, but most of the time this aphorism is delivered in a way that's belittling and destructive, rather than constructive.

There's a SMBC comic about that somewhere. Found it (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2314#comic).

[Drascin]

There is one Spanish saying that can be translated as something like "He who stays silent, concedes". It basically says that if you don't argue against what is being said, it MUST mean you agree with it.

There are far too many idiots in this world to bother replying to them all, and the fact that everyone seems to think that being too dumbfounded to reply means you clearly have lost the argument gets annoying really quickly.

[noparlpf]

There is one Spanish saying that can be translated as something like "He who stays silent, concedes". It basically says that if you don't argue against what is being said, it MUST mean you agree with it.

There are far too many idiots in this world to bother replying to them all, and the fact that everyone seems to think that being too dumbfounded to reply means you clearly have lost the argument gets annoying really quickly.

On the other hand, many people do accept silence as agreement.

[GolemsVoice]

I think it applies more to a discussion or a vote. If you don't say anything, you're agreeing with the majority. So it's saying: if you don't agree with what is being said (in the context of a vote or discussion) make your voice heard. And if you stay silent, don't complain.
I don't think it's mant as COMMENT ALL THE THINGS.

[Aedilred]

"You can't prove a negative".

Yes you can. For instance, I can prove that my computer mouse is not a camel. It just usually requires more information than proving the converse and is thus in many cases currently (though not absolutely) impossible, because there isn't that information available. If that information became available, it would be provable.

[Drascin]

On the other hand, many people do accept silence as agreement.

Yes they do. And that is precisely my gripe. It's GODDAMN STUPID. No, that I'm not replying doesn't mean I agree with you. It just means I don't consider it necessary to continue discussing. That's it.

But since everyone thinks that if you shut up that means the other guy wins, you get nearly every discussion reduced to people trying to exasperate their opponents until they no longer are willing to continue the discussion and then claiming they won - and most people actually agreeing with them.

It's an idea that turns discussions into contests of endurance.

[Timeras]

Oh, and only because it is so often mis-stated: "I could care less."

When used correctly ("couldn't"), I have no issue with it...but that so seldom happens these days. All you damn slackers get off my lawn.


I thought this was a regional difference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw).

[noparlpf]

I thought this was a regional difference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw).

Nope, most educated or older Americans I've spoken to hate "I could care less" too.

[Boci]

I mean, hypothetically, sure, but you can't really say until you've been in that situation.

Think about what you are saying: "never love, you could be hurt". You may think you aren't saying that, but you are. If you don't believe its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved then the logical conlucsion is to never love, because you will never know going into a relationship whether it will end well.

[noparlpf]

Think about what you are saying: "never love, you could be hurt". You may think you aren't saying that, but you are. If you don't believe its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved then the logical conlucsion is to never love, because you will never know going into a relationship whether it will end well.

Seems fair. Sex is an obsolete form of procreation anyway.

[warty goblin]

Seems fair. Sex is an obsolete form of procreation anyway.

Nobody was talking about sex. Which, given it's the overwhelming choice for baby-making, is anything but obsolete.

[noparlpf]

Nobody was talking about sex. Which, given it's the overwhelming choice for baby-making, is anything but obsolete.

No, but procreation is the reason love evolved. And maybe it's not obsolete now, but give it a few decades until the new technology becomes cheaper and starts catching on.

[Boci]

No, but procreation is the reason love evolved. And maybe it's not obsolete now, but give it a few decades until the new technology becomes cheaper and starts catching on.

And how many years till the human race evolves to stop feeling love?

[warty goblin]

No, but procreation is the reason love evolved. And maybe it's not obsolete now, but give it a few decades until the new technology becomes cheaper and starts catching on.
Love, as in the desire to spend the rest of your life with somebody and have lots of babies with them is actually more a strategy for ensuring offspring survival than it is encouragement for sex. Nerve endings and hormones take care of the later.

Procreation via sex:
Cost of process: Zero.
Fun: High
Number of people you wouldn't sleep with who look at your junk: Zero
Hospital Gowns: None (unless they turn you on)
Time spent in hospital waiting rooms filled with magazines dating from the Jurassic*: Very little.
Feet in stirrups: No (unless that turns you on)
Jars of Sperm: None (unless they turn you on)



Procreation via technology:
Cost of process: > Zero.
Fun: Low.
Number of people you wouldn't sleep with who look at your junk: > Zero
Hospital Gowns: Almost certainly, whether they turn you on or not. And if they do, it's not like you're in a position to take advantage of that...
Time spent in hospital waiting rooms filled with magazines dating from the Jurassic: Probably High.
Feet in stirrups: Yes, whether or not it turns you on.
Jars of Sperm: Yes.


Not to mention something like half the pregnancies in the US are unintentional anyways. Clearly sex is in immediate danger of disappearing.


*This millennium's headline: Feathers, the new scales? Top raptor species weigh in.

[GolemsVoice]

Yes they do. And that is precisely my gripe. It's GODDAMN STUPID. No, that I'm not replying doesn't mean I agree with you. It just means I don't consider it necessary to continue discussing. That's it.

And that's exactly what this saying is about. Maybe "agreeing" is the wrong word, but by not voicing your opinion, you're content with whatever the others choose.
I don't believe this saying was meant for debates about right or wrong, but for debates where the outcome is an action or a thing. As I said: 3 people for, 2 people against, you stay silent, the three people win. That's that. The saying is, well... saying: "If you have something to say, say it. If you don't, don't complain later." Because that's a common thing with people, and thus it needs to be warned against.

[noparlpf]

And how many years till the human race evolves to stop feeling love?

Well, depending on which genes we select for, it could take as much as ten thousand years or even two hundred thousand years. There's no real impetus to stop feeling love or lust just because you're not gestated via pregnancy.

As I was being largely non-serious when I brought it up, let's just drop it now, okay?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think, to be honest, it wouldn't be a problem if restricted in its use to situations where it's appropriate. If people start throwing it around willy-nilly, then, yeah, that's clearly false.
This is pretty much the best way to approach any aphorism. Don't throw away an aphorism just because some people abuse it. There's grains of truth in most of them, and that's the important bit. Aphorisms work so long as you're applying them with common sense.

They're also much better-suited for self-reflection than for telling to people. I think that telling someone an aphorism when they don't need it (so that they can recall it when it applies to their life) is far better than telling them when I think they need it.

[thubby]

Some that bug me:

"Head over heels in love." Isn't your head above your heels most of the time anyway? Heels over head in love would make more sense, if the sense of the aphorism is that love has inverted or altered your general state in some fashion.

it's referring to a cartwheel. like "end over end" means to roll something.

[Kelb_Panthera]

"It takes two to tango"

The last resort of adults who want to act impartial by claiming it's the fault of the bullied kid as well as the bullies. Evil justification of inaction that was one of the reasons I nearly went insane in my old school.

Along with that, "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." God, that one pisses me off.
I've never heard of "two to tango" being used that way. It makes no sense when used that way, if for no other reason, because for two people to engage in a tango they both have to want to.

The latter aphorism is generally meant to be a way to say that while being bullied certainly isn't a choice, how you deal with it is. It's up to the victim to either weather the bullying with aplomb, stand up for themselves (verbally or physically), or to allow it to overwhelm them. In my experience most bullies will fold like a house of cards if you push back with everything you've got. Even if they stomp you in that particular altercation, they usually conclude that further provocation is more trouble than its worth.

And you are also only entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. If the entire world is against you, then either you are wrong or the world is wrong and before you start planting yourself besides the river of truth and stuff you should do some real honest self assessing to make sure it isn't you. Then if you still believe you are right you can go tell the world to move, but Serpentines point (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is that a lot of people skip over that first step.

Edit:


That is nice and all, but the point is that there are plenty of mass murderers that would feel that this quote applies to them. Also, I don't remember the exact context of the quote but I'm fairly sure captain America wasn't advocating peaceful demonstrations when he said it.

I know I'm late to the party here, but funny thing about that quote in the Captain America context; in the end Cap realized he was wrong and surrendered.

[warty goblin]

I've never heard of "two to tango" being used that way. It makes no sense when used that way, if for no other reason, because for two people to engage in a tango they both have to want to.



Yeah, I've only really ever read it being used to apportion equal blame to two adults having an affair, a situation where it is reasonable to argue that both parties are equally to blame.

[Anarion]

They're also much better-suited for self-reflection than for telling to people. I think that telling someone an aphorism when they don't need it (so that they can recall it when it applies to their life) is far better than telling them when I think they need it.

This is good advice.


Now, this isn't quite an aphorism, but I'd like to take this moment to complain bitterly about Shakespeare, Hamlet's soliloquy specifically. Hamlet asks

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles..."

Have you ever tried taking arms against a sea of troubles? Armor+water is usually a bad combination, and I wouldn't much want to wade into the ocean with my sword and shield either, I'd probably lose them.

No wonder the guy went crazy if he was contemplating his choices as suffer or drown!

[GolemsVoice]

Maybe the additional arms help him swim?

[Mewtarthio]

No wonder the guy went crazy if he was contemplating his choices as suffer or drown!

"Suffer or drown" sounds like a pretty good description, actually. I honestly think you've interpreted that quote exactly how it was intended.

[Killer Angel]

There is one Spanish saying that can be translated as something like "He who stays silent, concedes". It basically says that if you don't argue against what is being said, it MUST mean you agree with it.

There are far too many idiots in this world to bother replying to them all, and the fact that everyone seems to think that being too dumbfounded to reply means you clearly have lost the argument gets annoying really quickly.

Well, it derives from a Latin phrase - "Qui tacet consentit" (or "qui tacet consentire videtur"), that can be translated as: silence implies consent (he who is silent is taken to agree).
If I'm not wrong, originally it was limited to political and legal contexts, and it's the basis for the concept of the Silent Agreement contracts.

Many aphorisms / quotes work well, if taken in their original meaning. It's when they're applied too generally, that things start going wrong.

[Zrak]

"Head over heels in love." Isn't your head above your heels most of the time anyway? Heels over head in love would make more sense, if the sense of the aphorism is that love has inverted or altered your general state in some fashion.
Actually, the phrase originally was "heels over head." It got switched around sometime in the eighteenth century as the phrase became more and more popular.


Think about what you are saying: "never love, you could be hurt". You may think you aren't saying that, but you are. If you don't believe its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved then the logical conlucsion is to never love, because you will never know going into a relationship whether it will end well.

Only if you take the phrase to mean "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never, ever loved anyone or anything," rather than "it's better to have loved and lost that never fallen in love in this particular instance." One can make the decision that it's worth the risk and later come to regret that decision.

[Boci]

"it's better to have loved and lost that never fallen in love in this particular instance."

That reminds me of the quote from a TV show I no longer recall "Hinsight is a fascinating thing, also completly useless". Yeah its probably exaggerating for affect, but it has a point. Since your not going to know how things turn out. By entering a relationship you subscribe to the aphorisms, because as a thinking adult you are aware that things could turn out bad for you. Also there is a difference between regretting a descision and wishing you could undo it. I regret quite a few mistakes I've made, but if I went back and undid them I would only have made them again because I needed to make those mistakes to learn.

[Fragenstein]

"Suffer or drown" sounds like a pretty good description, actually. I honestly think you've interpreted that quote exactly how it was intended.

Pretty much.

A brave man doesn't fear death. Also, people who venture forth into unknown territory are considered brave. What lies beyond death is pretty much the most unknown of territories around.

A brave man also never runs from a fight even when he knows he can't win (strategic withdrawls aside). Hamlet was surrounded by enemies and pretty much doomed.

So would he be a coward for fearing death and letting his enemies send him there without his consent? Would he be a coward for fearing his enemies and fleeing into the death that awaited him already?

I like the solution he came up with; flee into death and take the entire household with you.

[noparlpf]

Maybe the additional arms help him swim?

I dunno, might be hard to coordinate them.

[Teddy]

The latter aphorism is generally meant to be a way to say that while being bullied certainly isn't a choice, how you deal with it is. It's up to the victim to either weather the bullying with aplomb, stand up for themselves (verbally or physically), or to allow it to overwhelm them. In my experience most bullies will fold like a house of cards if you push back with everything you've got. Even if they stomp you in that particular altercation, they usually conclude that further provocation is more trouble than its worth.

This is heavily dependent on the situation, and puts way more responsibility on the victim than justified. You shouldn't tell the victim how to do or feel, because the only thing that's good for is a cheap excuse for those who're actually responsible to do nothing.

[Zrak]

Yeah its probably exaggerating for affect, but it has a point. Since your not going to know how things turn out. By entering a relationship you subscribe to the aphorisms, because as a thinking adult you are aware that things could turn out bad for you.
I really don't see how that's true. You're arguing that a thinking adult entering a relationship necessarily must subscribe to, for instance, "Time, which strengthens friendship, weakens love." In that case, as a thinking adult, why are they entering the relationship, knowing how it will turn out. They automatically subscribe to "the aphorisms," right? I'm of the opinion that, as thinking adults, thinking adults can do something while believing that any given pithy turn of phrase about it is false.


Also there is a difference between regretting a descision and wishing you could undo it. I regret quite a few mistakes I've made, but if I went back and undid them I would only have made them again because I needed to make those mistakes to learn.
Okay, so it's possible to think a relationship is worth the risk and later wish you'd never made that decision, wished you could undo that decision, and so on. Secondly, what you do isn't really relevant here, since my entire point is that how you react really has no bearing on how others feel about or react to similar situations.

[Boci]

I really don't see how that's true. You're arguing that a thinking adult entering a relationship necessarily must subscribe to, for instance, "Time, which strengthens friendship, weakens love." In that case, as a thinking adult, why are they entering the relationship, knowing how it will turn out. They automatically subscribe to "the aphorisms," right?

No they don't (and even if they did they may not be that bothered that after decades of happiness they could potentiall divorce). If you don't believe that the risk if worth it, why are you entering a relationship? If its better to have never loved than to have loved and lost, why are you risking lost by allowing the seeds of love you already feel to grow to grow?


Okay, so it's possible to think a relationship is worth the risk and later wish you'd never made that decision, wished you could undo that decision, and so on.

Yes, but its all hypothetical. Its easy to say "If I could forget I would" because you cannot. I'm honestly feel that when actually offered a pill that will make them forget a failed romance, many people will suddenly change their mind and decide to keep even their unpleasant memories.

In any case, I reiterate my point. If you go into a relationship, you are risking it failing, so if you truely believe its better to not love than to lose someone you love, why are you entering the relationship?

Because I have been watching Zero Punctuation and I feel like the dry sarcasm is rubbing off on me, let me demonstrate my point in another manner. I'm pretty sure most people who survive car crashes continue driving, and we are not biologically hardwired to drive a car.

[Zrak]

No they don't (and even if they did they may not be that bothered that after decades of happiness they could potentiall divorce). If you don't believe that the risk if worth it, why are you entering a relationship? If its better to have never loved than to have loved and lost, why are you risking lost by allowing the seeds of love you already feel to grow to grow?
Obviously one believes the risk is worth it at the time, but that doesn't mean one will still hold that opinion when all is said and done.


In any case, I reiterate my point. If you go into a relationship, you are risking it failing, so if you truely believe its better to not love than to lose someone you love, why are you entering the relationship?
This relies on the false assumption that people are emotionally static; it's not that people believe it's better not to love than to love and lose something, but that, after having lost it, people believe they would have been better off never having what they lost. People can change their minds, especially when circumstances change. Your argument is, essentially, that if one bought into an idea at any point in one's life, one must adhere to that forever, regardless of changes in circumstance.


Because I have been watching Zero Punctuation and I feel like the dry sarcasm is rubbing off on me, let me demonstrate my point in another manner. I'm pretty sure most people who survive car crashes continue driving, and we are not biologically hardwired to drive a car.
That's not really analogous at all, though.

[Aedilred]

Yes, but its all hypothetical. Its easy to say "If I could forget I would" because you cannot. I'm honestly feel that when actually offered a pill that will make them forget a failed romance, many people will suddenly change their mind and decide to keep even their unpleasant memories.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/ (Man, that film's eight years old?!)


In any case, I reiterate my point. If you go into a relationship, you are risking it failing, so if you truely believe its better to not love than to lose someone you love, why are you entering the relationship?
Because people don't act rationally when they're in love. Because it probably seems like it's going to work out. Because people don't anticipate how badly they're going to get hurt, especially the first time.


Because I have been watching Zero Punctuation and I feel like the dry sarcasm is rubbing off on me, let me demonstrate my point in another manner. I'm pretty sure most people who survive car crashes continue driving, and we are not biologically hardwired to drive a car.
It's a reasonable analogy. Most people who get into car crashes will carry on driving. But there are people so traumatised by the experience that they never want to drive again; there are people so badly injured that they physically can't drive again, and, yup, there are some people who just don't survive the experience.

[willpell]

It turns out that I like Captain America as a character a lot more than I expected I would. But there's one quote of his that gets thrown around a lot, and it bothers me. The same sentiment turns up in a lot of other places, too, but this is the only specific quote of it I can think of:

"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move.""

Yeah, I really hated that one too. It makes Cap sound like he's advocating never listening to anything anyone ever says.

[Aedilred]

Yeah, I really hated that one too. It makes Cap sound like he's advocating never listening to anything anyone ever says.
To be fair, nine times out of ten that's a pretty good policy.

Or to put it another way, 90% of the time, it works every time.

[Kalmarvho]

Yeah, I really hated that one too. It makes Cap sound like he's advocating never listening to anything anyone ever says.

The nuance of Cap's views depend entirely on who's writing him of course. For example, this is a superior Captain America speech.


http://www.herosandwich.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/captrash1.jpg
http://www.herosandwich.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/captrash2.jpg
http://www.herosandwich.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/captrash3.jpg
http://www.herosandwich.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/captrash4.jpg
http://www.herosandwich.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/captrash5.jpg

[Wyntonian]

Yeah, I really hated that one too. It makes Cap sound like he's advocating never listening to anything anyone ever says.

If you just read the end, yeah.

But if you read the whole thing, it says that on those rare instances where you are absolutely, 1.00 certain that you are correct, that you cannot allow objective truth to be dictated by a democracy, no matter how unpleasant that action may be.

[Traab]

Maybe the additional arms help him swim?

I think Dahmner tried that, it didnt end well.

[warty goblin]

If you just read the end, yeah.

But if you read the whole thing, it says that on those rare instances where you are absolutely, 1.00 certain that you are correct, that you cannot allow objective truth to be dictated by a democracy, no matter how unpleasant that action may be.

The problem with this is that (optimistically) half the time you get things that in retrospective we end up thinking of as good, noble and for the benefit of society. And half the time you get mass murder. Which, for the person doing it, probably seems like the right thing to do.

The problem with 'objective truth' is that for most things there's nothing objective about it. Or true, for that matter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is heavily dependent on the situation, and puts way more responsibility on the victim than justified. You shouldn't tell the victim how to do or feel, because the only thing that's good for is a cheap excuse for those who're actually responsible to do nothing.

I'm not telling the victim what to do or feel, just that he -is- responsible for how he deals with those feelings and whether or not he accepts feeling that way or does something to change it.

Being bullied sucks, but simply lying there and taking it is a choice.

[Boci]

Obviously one believes the risk is worth it at the time, but that doesn't mean one will still hold that opinion when all is said and done.

This relies on the false assumption that people are emotionally static; it's not that people believe it's better not to love than to love and lose something, but that, after having lost it, people believe they would have been better off never having what they lost. People can change their minds, especially when circumstances change. Your argument is, essentially, that if one bought into an idea at any point in one's life, one must adhere to that forever, regardless of changes in circumstance.

As a general rule? Yes. I know love does strange things to you, but its not a brain transplant, you are still you. And most people I feel will gain more on balance from love than wjat they lose when a relationship doesn't work out.

I also find it ironic your first comment to Starwulf was "I mean, hypothetically, sure, but you can't really say until you've been in that situation." and your arguments have since launched into hypotheticals.

Are there some people who would genuinly like to forget a ruined relationship? Sure, a small minority, its feasable. But that doesn't invalidate the aphorisms any more than the existance of sado-machocists invalidates "do onto others as you would have them do to you".


That's not really analogous at all, though.

Others disagree.

[nedz]

If you just read the end, yeah.

But if you read the whole thing, it says that on those rare instances where you are absolutely, 1.00 certain that you are correct, that you cannot allow objective truth to be dictated by a democracy, no matter how unpleasant that action may be.

It kind of reminds me of that Gandhi quote
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

[warty goblin]

It kind of reminds me of that Gandhi quote
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

Which is a charming sentiment and all, but it's not like there's rigorous axiomatic proof of the truth available for moral issues.

[Anarion]

The problem with the statement about sticking with truth against opposition is that it's too much of an absolute.

There is a lot of sense to explaining to people that just because they're facing pressure from a group doesn't mean they're wrong. Lots of times the majority group has all sorts of reasons for advancing wrong beliefs. Maintenance of the status quo being a nice overarching one.

The point of the saying (which definitely goes overboard) is that when you believe something is right or wrong and you've really thought about it, don't be too quick to give in to the mob. They might be right, but they might be motivated by a host of other factors besides truth.

[willpell]

On the original topic, I'm not sure if it's well-known enough to count as an aphorism, but Mark Rosewater of MTG fame is fond of saying "If you fight nature, you will lose". What an absolute cop-out statement. News flash, Mark: "human nature" is just the sum total of the way humans happen to be at the moment, and it can change. All you have to do is teach people a better way to behave, demonstrate that method's superiority to the current milieu and measurable ability to improve their lives, and in time that new method will become the norm. Civilization as a whole could never have existed if "human nature" were set in stone; we weren't civilized, and that was our nature, and then all of a sudden we were, and now *that* is our nature, until such time as it changes again.

Also, not so much for the idea being wrong but just for being cringeworthy, "Beating a dead horse" - what, so we should beat living horses instead? (I originally went on into other sayings that revolved around discipline of children, but decided that this was getting off-topic and was a little more hot-under-the-collar than was healthy, so consider this a self-scrubbing.)


The nuance of Cap's views depend entirely on who's writing him of course. For example, this is a superior Captain America speech.[/SPOILER]

Agreed, that is a vast improvement.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Is it possible, willpell, that Mark Rosewater is talking about fighting nature, as in the great outdoors and weather kind of nature rather than the instictually inclined behavior kind of nature?

If so, I have to say I agree with him. A person doesn't so much beat nature as survive it. If you keep fighting it long enough, it will kill you eventually.

The thought occured to me since any MtG designer might favor producing green cards, and say just that as a comment on his favorite type of creature/magic. I haven't really followed MtG for several years now.

[Anarion]

On the original topic, I'm not sure if it's well-known enough to count as an aphorism, but Mark Rosewater of MTG fame is fond of saying "If you fight nature, you will lose". What an absolute cop-out statement. News flash, Mark: "human nature" is just the sum total of the way humans happen to be at the moment, and it can change. All you have to do is teach people a better way to behave, demonstrate that method's superiority to the current milieu and measurable ability to improve their lives, and in time that new method will become the norm. Civilization as a whole could never have existed if "human nature" were set in stone; we weren't civilized, and that was our nature, and then all of a sudden we were, and now *that* is our nature, until such time as it changes again.


In defense of Maro, I believe he uses that expression mostly when talking about psychological phenomena, like what kinds of things trigger a happiness response or a frustration response. Granted, even those can be altered with Pavlovian brainwashing, but I think the idea is that the majority of the population shares certain basic emotions. Those emotions can be served by games and usually a design works better when it doesn't act against those psychological triggers because Pavlovian brainwashing is hard.



"Spare the rod and spoil the child".

Okay, I want to say that nobody uses this phrase seriously anymore. I'm worried, however, that someone is going to immediately point out a circumstance where it's still used seriously and make me sad. So, I hope that nobody uses it seriously anymore.

[The Second]

"Good things come to those who wait." Ok, you wait right there for something good to happen, I'm going to go make something good happen.

"Don't try, do." Please stop quoting Yoda, I'm trying to study so that I don't fail my next test.

"If it's not broken, don't fix it." But I can make it so much better if I do.

"Work smarter, not harder." Ok then, smart yourself out of a job, see if I care. Note that I only hear this coming from people who would rather not work in the first place.

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth." No, no. Always look a gift horse in the mouth. It not that I;m ungrateful, but it costs a lo of money to bury a dead horse.

"It's my way or the highway." OK, you can have your way, I'll take the highway. Have fun.

"Love is blind." Nope, love has 20/20 vision and a magnifying glass. If your not willing to work through all of those flaws, imperfections, and annoyances, your going to fall right out of love.

"The more you know, the better of you are." Wrong; the less I know, the happier I am. For instance, I didn't need to know the ingredients in my favorite food, I didn't need to know that Santa Clause is a myth, and I definitely didn't need to know that you just took a dump.

"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." You're right, what I don't get is why you're still here, bothering me.

[willpell]

More sayings that bother me:

* "Mess with the bull, get the horns." I can't really argue that the idea is valid, it's just a personal peeve of mine to take pride in this sort of hard-headedness.

* Any variation of "Lead, follow or get out of the way", "if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes", "eat or be eaten", "swim with the sharks", etc. All pretty much boil down to "The world isn't a nice place, so you shouldn't be a nice person", which is rather self-fulfilling.

* Speaking of swimming, "sink or swim". A brand of potato chips that I like (I buy them just because they taste good and are cheap, despite not always agreeing with the maker's politics) has anecdotes from the maker's youth printed on the back, and one of them describes how when he was a kid, his buddies took him out to a lake and he stated he didn't know how to swim. They said they would teach him to swim by holding him up so he'd be safe, then when they get in the middle of the lake, they pushed him off the boat, forcing him to get back to the shore under his own power, and then congratulated themselves on having successfully taught him to swim. He says he now wonders every time he reads about someone drowning whether they had the same kind of "friends" he grew up with.


Is it possible, willpell, that Mark Rosewater is talking about fighting nature, as in the great outdoors and weather kind of nature rather than the instictually inclined behavior kind of nature?

No, he means human nature when he says this; I don't have time to source the oft-repeated quote but it's generally him talking about the public's buying habits and/or the perception of the game as "fun", and using this to explain why he shies away from innovation and boundary-pushing in favor of keeping the experience comfortable and newbie-accessible.


If so, I have to say I agree with him. A person doesn't so much beat nature as survive it. If you keep fighting it long enough, it will kill you eventually.

If you keep existing long enough, time will kill you eventually. You're kinda not really saying anything here, sorry.


Okay, I want to say that nobody uses this phrase seriously anymore. I'm worried, however, that someone is going to immediately point out a circumstance where it's still used seriously and make me sad. So, I hope that nobody uses it seriously anymore.

I edited my post above, not trying to cut you out of the loop but just dialing back on what is something of a heated subject for me, not wanting to start any drama. :smallredface:


"Work smarter, not harder." Ok then, smart yourself out of a job, see if I care. Note that I only hear this coming from people who would rather not work in the first place.

Personally, I agree with this idea, even though I know I'm not supposed to since it comes from Dilbert's pointy-haired boss. I see it as an injunction to think about what you're doing and devise an intelligent, energy-saving solution, rather than just mindlessly plugging away at the problem in the same fashion that everyone before you ever has. Of course, there is a somewhat slippery slope involved, but I think as a general principle, exercised reasonably, it has merit.


"The more you know, the better of you are." Wrong; the less I know, the happier I am. For instance, I didn't need to know the ingredients in my favorite food, I didn't need to know that Santa Clause is a myth, and I definitely didn't need to know that you just took a dump.

I have mixed feelings on this one. Personally, I'm very content not knowing the details of my mother's sexual history, but on the other hand, I have the idea that this is me being squeamish for purely personal reasons and that it demonstrates that I am less enlightened than I should be, for if I didn't have an irrational embarassment-disgust reaction to these objectively-meaningful facts, they could potentially be useful to me in some measurable way, such as buying a thoughtful gift that reminds her of a past lover who was never really anything but a boy-toy to her (but a very good one who she remembers fondly), and thus wouldn't even be mentioned if we weren't talking about a subject that I, for subjective reasons, don't want to talk about. I'm inclined to think that knowledge is never bad, but that the failing is our inability to accept it, that ever having such reactions is proof we're not really mature as a species. All just speculation on my part, mind. :smallcool:

[Zrak]

As a general rule? Yes. I know love does strange things to you, but its not a brain transplant, you are still you. And most people I feel will gain more on balance from love than wjat they lose when a relationship doesn't work out.
You can feel that all you want, other people might not feel the same. They have every right not to feel the same and, more to the point, not to agree with aphorisms telling them that how they feel is wrong.


I also find it ironic your first comment to Starwulf was "I mean, hypothetically, sure, but you can't really say until you've been in that situation." and your arguments have since launched into hypotheticals.
What's ironic about that? All I've been arguing is that one can't know the feelings of others or, even, really know one's own reaction to a hypothetical situation.


Are there some people who would genuinly like to forget a ruined relationship? Sure, a small minority, its feasable. But that doesn't invalidate the aphorisms any more than the existance of sado-machocists invalidates "do onto others as you would have them do to you".
On what grounds do you presume it to be a small minority? Secondly, for that small minority, yes, the aphorism is invalid, and they can object to its application to them.


Others disagree.
The only other poster who mentioned the analogy still disagreed with the lesson you drew from it. Without regard to that, you keep framing your argument in a temporally and situationally totalizing way, which relies on an unfeasibly static view of the world and human emotions. The analogy you made is to your own interpretation, wherein one must always believe any- and everything one has ever believed and any opinion of a specific situation must apply to all generalizations which can be made from that situation. Since my whole point is that said argument is neither realistic in the slightest nor keeping with the intention of the phrase in question, the argument is not analogous to the situation I'm describing, nor really a counter to the point. If we presume the phrase to mean what you take it to mean, the idea is a better analogy but, as others have pointed out, still doesn't negate disagreements with the aphorism in the least.

That said, people who are severely injured by a car accident that results from mechanical failure often likely wish they had not purchased such a faulty vehicle. It's not about cars or about driving, the phrase is about a specific car and one's experiences in that car, and some cars are just terrible, bad investments one wishes one had never made.

EDIT: Also, everyone who thought they could beat nature is either dead or going to die. Not only can one not beat nature, one can't even survive it. Death is nature and death is inevitable, nature wins.

[Teddy]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/ (Man, that film's eight years old?!)

And yet I saw it on television this weekend.


I'm not telling the victim what to do or feel, just that he -is- responsible for how he deals with those feelings and whether or not he accepts feeling that way or does something to change it.

Being bullied sucks, but simply lying there and taking it is a choice.

I'm sorry, but to me, that sounds roughly equivalent to "being shot sucks, but simply lying there and bleeding to death is a choice". Bullying is a form of psychological torture (to different levels of severity). Is it reasonable to say that it's the torture victim's responsibility to not be helpless and in pain? :smallconfused:

I understand that your intentions may not be such, but from a former bullying victim's perspective, saying things like this is riddiculous and practically never helps the victim to start with.


"Good things come to those who wait." Ok, you wait right there for something good to happen, I'm going to go make something good happen.

This is one of the aphorisms that makes a lot more sense if you look at it from the other end: "Good things wont come for those who are too impatient to wait for them".


"The more you know, the better of you are." Wrong; the less I know, the happier I am. For instance, I didn't need to know the ingredients in my favorite food, I didn't need to know that Santa Clause is a myth, and I definitely didn't need to know that you just took a dump.

Actually, according to the article I read in our local newspaper yesterday, academic studies have shown that a higher education doesn't only lead to a higher pay (generally speaking), but also better heath, more happiness and a longer life expectancy. Given, not everything is worth knowing (as you pointed out), but a lot of it can be useful in some way or another. After all, only with knowledge of the ingredients could you cook your favourite food yourself. :smallwink:


"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." You're right, what I don't get is why you're still here, bothering me.

Perhaps he was bothered by the taste of your vinegar. :smallwink:

[noparlpf]

"If it's not broken, don't fix it." But I can make it so much better if I do.

Maybe you can, but often attempts to improve perfectly good things end up less good than the original thing, or at the very least they're just different and annoying to switch to. Instead of fixing perfectly good things, please spend your time coming up with new things instead.


"Work smarter, not harder." Ok then, smart yourself out of a job, see if I care. Note that I only hear this coming from people who would rather not work in the first place.

Depends on the task. Sometimes you could finish something by working hard at it, but you could have finished it more easily by being smart about it. Doesn't actually mean hard work is worthless. You need a good mix of intelligence and work ethic.


"Never look a gift horse in the mouth." No, no. Always look a gift horse in the mouth. It not that I;m ungrateful, but it costs a lo of money to bury a dead horse.

Translation: You just got something for free. Addendum: At least wait until the guy who have it to you isn't looking before you do something rude like check for a receipt.


"Love is blind." Nope, love has 20/20 vision and a magnifying glass. If your not willing to work through all of those flaws, imperfections, and annoyances, your going to fall right out of love.

Maybe you've never been in that "puppy love" stage?


"The more you know, the better of you are." Wrong; the less I know, the happier I am. For instance, I didn't need to know the ingredients in my favorite food, I didn't need to know that Santa Clause is a myth, and I definitely didn't need to know that you just took a dump.

Alternatively, "Ignorance is bliss." Personally, I prefer a middle ground. Knowing stuff is neat, but some things I'd rather people keep to themselves.


"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." You're right, what I don't get is why you're still here, bothering me.

Translation: Don't be rude, you'll get farther by being nice or at least polite to people.
Also, didn't the Mythbusters disprove that one?

[Fragenstein]

Okay, I want to say that nobody uses this phrase seriously anymore (spare the rod...) I'm worried, however, that someone is going to immediately point out a circumstance where it's still used seriously and make me sad. So, I hope that nobody uses it seriously anymore.

At least not in the physically abusive sense. But I think the phrase has evolved into the concept of giving a child structure and discipline. Allowing them to believe that their actions have no consequences and/or providing them everything upon demand will leave them with less potential than a child who has been taught to focus their intentions on valued achievements.

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, I think a lot of people are taking these aphorism very literally. They never apply all of the time, but are rather gems of wisdom to consider kept in a format easily remembered. So "If it's not broken, don't fix it" doesn't mean "never try to improve anything" and "good things come to those who wait" doesn't mean "never be active".

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Teddy:

Comparing being bullied to being shot is a bit of false equivalency, don't you think. Unless the bullies cripple you, you, you're not helpless to resist or react.

I understand this is a sensitive subject for more than a few people, and that feelings of helplessness do occur as a result of bullying, but feeling helpless and actually being helpless are two extremely different things. Feeling helpless can be overcome with concerted effort.

Note that I also speak from experience on this matter. I've got the scars to prove it.

[Boci]

On what grounds do you presume it to be a small minority? Secondly, for that small minority, yes, the aphorism is invalid, and they can object to its application to them.

No aphorism is going to apply to the whole of humanity, so the fact that it doesn't apply to a small amount of people is meaningless. What makes me think its a small amount of humans? I just don't imagine that many people being able to stop themselves from loving for therest of their lives because of a failed relationship. And if you call burden of proof on that you have no idea how BoP works.

I'm getting tired of this debate. The aphorisms is valid because its true the majority of the time and because love is one of the best things that can happen to a human and hence worth the risk, even if a small amount of humans later regret the risk. The fact that this has been repeated so many times that it is now a cliche is worrying, as stating the obvious rarely becomes cinsidered cliche and I don't want to dismiss the other side of that argument with "its cool to hate Hollywood love", but right now I'm stumped to come up with an alternative.

[Anarion]

At least not in the physically abusive sense. But I think the phrase has evolved into the concept of giving a child structure and discipline. Allowing them to believe that their actions have no consequences and/or providing them everything upon demand will leave them with less potential than a child who has been taught to focus their intentions on valued achievements.

Hmm, I see your point there and I agree with how you present it, but I'm still not sure I agree with the use of the aphorism. Spare the rod, spoil the child contains the idea of punishment. Even if that means strict discipline and no physical abuse, that still connotes a sense in which children aren't really people yet. I'd prefer kids understand why something they do is wrong and has consequences. I also think that if you withhold too much, you can easily create resentment, especially if the kid starts to understand that you could provide them with what they want and you're withholding it from them just to force them to work.

[Fragenstein]

Hmm, I see your point there and I agree with how you present it, but I'm still not sure I agree with the use of the aphorism. Spare the rod, spoil the child contains the idea of punishment. Even if that means strict discipline and no physical abuse, that still connotes a sense in which children aren't really people yet. I'd prefer kids understand why something they do is wrong and has consequences. I also think that if you withhold too much, you can easily create resentment, especially if the kid starts to understand that you could provide them with what they want and you're withholding it from them just to force them to work.

It's a delicate balance, isn't it? Certainly a child should not be rewarded for running up and down a grocery store aisle while screaming. But at the same time, a truly spartan childhood isn't healthy, either.

Allowing a child free expression is good... allowing a completely tone-deaf child to sing constantly and loudly in public isn't helping anyone. It would be better to put him into singing lessons with an education of where such expression is appropriate.

Requiring that a mature child do chores for an allowance is good... shouting at an immature one for not doing something he never understood in the first place is bad. It's also bad to make the child feel as if he were born already deep in debt and had to scrape for every luxury or moment of approval.

Exactly where the line is drawn is not always easy to see, but I'm sure I'll figure all of that out as soon as I'm a parent.......... so no worries................

[Killer Angel]

Exactly where the line is drawn is not always easy to see, but I'm sure I'll figure all of that out as soon as I'm a parent.......... so no worries................

As a parent, you'll be able to see all your mistakes, so you will work hard, to prapare the next ones.. :smallwink:

(this was just to cite another aphorism, by B. Brecht: "I'm having a hard time; I'm preparing my next mistake". BTW, this is one of the humorous aphorisms I really like).

[Thufir]

Hm. I really should've looked at this thread sooner, it's really interesting.

First gonig to say that generally, I definitely agree that a big problem with some of these is not that they're wrong so much as they're frequently misapplied.
I'd also agree with whoever it was who said that often aphorisms are better applied to oneself rather than said to other people.

Now, to specifics:


In Men in Black, Kay explodes one of the most annoying aphorisms.

Jay:Well, it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Kay: (Disgusted) Try it.

It should be noted that the problem with this is not that it's not true (Though that does vary from person to person), but rather that it's not helpful. I would not retroactively wish past relationships out of existence just because they ended badly. I'm glad of them, especially once I've had time to get over the pain. But when I'm freshly in the throes of that pain, when the break-up has just happened, the aphorism doesn't make me feel any better.


"You Only Live Once", aka "YOLO", whose original phrase goes as far back if not further, to 1774, as the line: "one lives but once in the world".

It once meant "Go out, and live life to it's fullest". Now it's used as an excuse to be trashy, rude, stupid, etc. :smallannoyed:

Perhaps, the crowning proof that the message has been ruined, comes about of the story from California, where a 21 year old was driving with 4 others while intoxicated, AND driving at 120 MPH, AND texting on twitter about it and used the infamous "YOLO" line as an excuse. Sadly unsurprisingly, his "YOLO" moment led to him crashing, and killing himself and his 4 friends.

:smallsigh:
Yeah, some people I fear have missed what should be the other implication of "YOLO", namely, that since you only have one chance at life, don't screw it up.


"Great minds think alike" - to me it sounds like "you're totally awesome, but I'm awesome too". Brown-nosing and gloating at once.

That one doesn't really bother me. Though admittedly, my own preferred form is "Great minds think alike - and coincidentally, so do we."


I don't have such a problem with "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". A lot of the time it's true. It's the principle on which vaccines work, after all. Pushing yourself to the limits of physical capacity hurts like hell, but you'll be stronger for it. And until psychology really developed as a field, it was (and, tbh, is) widely held that a strict, difficult upbringing makes you better-equipped to handle the world.

Of course, crippling physical injury, heart attacks, strokes, various other medical conditions that weaken without killing, and lifelong emotional trauma caused by nonfatal incidents suggest that it's not always applicable.

I think, to be honest, it wouldn't be a problem if restricted in its use to situations where it's appropriate. If people start throwing it around willy-nilly, then, yeah, that's clearly false.

The issue with "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is that it's mostly applicable when not taken literally. Generally, you come through negative experiences better equipped to deal with other negative experiences in future; but when the experience is actually life-threatening, there are frequently exceptions to this.


"If it's not broken, don't fix it." But I can make it so much better if I do.

Or sometimes you can break it while trying to improve it in a minor way. This is not a universal thing, but a fairly pervasive one which a lot of people and companies could stand to bear in mind and consider whether the improvements they can make are worth the problems they will cause.


"Work smarter, not harder." Ok then, smart yourself out of a job, see if I care. Note that I only hear this coming from people who would rather not work in the first place.

Or, as someone else already noted, they could use their smarts to figure out a more efficient means of doing the work rather than just grinding away at it.


"Never look a gift horse in the mouth." No, no. Always look a gift horse in the mouth. It not that I'm ungrateful, but it costs a lot of money to bury a dead horse.

If the issue is you think the gift will leave you with some unfortunate consequences/costs, I would liken that more to looking a Trojan Horse in the mouth - a very sensible practice. The common aphorism, however, is entirely valid - it's a gift. It's not costing you anything. Regardless of any defects, it is of greater value than the nothing the gift-giver could have left you with.


"It's my way or the highway." OK, you can have your way, I'll take the highway. Have fun.

...that's exactly how the phrase is supposed to work.


"Love is blind." Nope, love has 20/20 vision and a magnifying glass. If you're not willing to work through all of those flaws, imperfections, and annoyances, you're going to fall right out of love.

You are either very wrong or working to a different and narrower definition of love than most people use.


"The more you know, the better off you are." Wrong; the less I know, the happier I am. For instance, I didn't need to know the ingredients in my favorite food, I didn't need to know that Santa Claus is a myth, and I definitely didn't need to know that you just took a dump.

Firstly, I've never heard of that being an aphorism prior to reading this post of yours. I have however heard of "Ignorance is bliss."
Secondly, the answer is definitely somewhere between the two. Some things I would rather not know, but many others will acutely arouse my curiosity.


"You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." You're right, what I don't get is why you're still here, bothering me.

Well, that's making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of the conversation in which the aphorism is being said to you.


I'm sorry, but to me, that sounds roughly equivalent to "being shot sucks, but simply lying there and bleeding to death is a choice". Bullying is a form of psychological torture (to different levels of severity). Is it reasonable to say that it's the torture victim's responsibility to not be helpless and in pain? :smallconfused:

I understand that your intentions may not be such, but from a former bullying victim's perspective, saying things like this is ridiculous and practically never helps the victim to start with.

OK. So. While psychological torture should not be diminished as "less real" than physical, the fact remains that there is clearly a difference. Allow me to offer a different analogy:

If someone breaks my arm, I will be unable to use that arm until it heals and all I can do to expedite the healing process is get it attended to and not put additional strain on it. Not to mention any attempt to use it in the meantime will likely cause me severe pain however I go about it. And if someone is breaking my arm, I cannot stop my arm being broken unless I overpower them as they make the attempt.
However, if someone bullies me and damages my self-esteem, this does not negate my ability to think well of myself, and while the process may again take some time, it is something I can actively apply myself to, and if gone about well, attempts to 'use' my self-esteem in the meantime may in fact improve its state rather than hurting. And if someone is attempting to damage my self-esteem with insults or similar, I can stop the damage by choosing to devalue their opinion of me and ignore them.

Returning then to the aphorism, "No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Now, if someone is trying to make you feel inferior, that's a rather emotional experience and it's hard to bring something like this to mind. But if you can remember it at a relevant moment, or simply internalise an attitude of not caring about people trying to put you down, you can, in the terms of the aphorism, deny your consent and not let that person make you feel inferior.
I've not applied the aphorism to myself, but I have adopted such an attitude, and it helped.


Finally, in the course of responding to one of these I thought of one which annoys me:

Related to "YOLO", I've often seen on TV shows characters giving the advice to "Live each day like it's your last," or words to that effect.
Now, I can appreciate the sentiment, of not putting things off, seizing the moment, etc. But the phrasing bothers me, because if you take it literally, it makes no sense. If I decided to live each day literally as if it was the last day of my life, I would never apply for a job. I might skip out on rehearsals for shows I'm going to be in, taking the attitude that I may well not be alive to perform in them. I would neglect new acquaintances, because why bother getting to know new people when this could be the last time I talk to the friends I already have? I would also run up huge phone bills talking to people who I couldn't go see, or spend large amounts of money to go visit people who live far away but still within reach of a day's travel.
If you actually live each day like it was your last, you can't do anything long-term. And that's a pretty stupid attitude unless you actually do know you're going to die.

[Teddy]

@Teddy:

Comparing being bullied to being shot is a bit of false equivalency, don't you think. Unless the bullies cripple you, you, you're not helpless to resist or react.

I understand this is a sensitive subject for more than a few people, and that feelings of helplessness do occur as a result of bullying, but feeling helpless and actually being helpless are two extremely different things. Feeling helpless can be overcome with concerted effort.

Note that I also speak from experience on this matter. I've got the scars to prove it.

Yes, I know it's not especially good as a likeness, but my point is that your point depends on rationality being stronger than emotion, which it seldom is in cases like these. Worst, however, is that the advice (or whatever it is) is practically useless, and displays a reluctance to help from the advicers part. Being told that you can solve it on your own if you only put your effort to it is very easily interpretted as a statement of cowardice or insufficient worth for the one with a broken self-esteem, and it's too easily used by others to justify inaction.

It's especially that last part (of what I said, not what you said) that ticks me off so badly (together with "it's not that bad" and "just ignore them"), not because I've been at the suffering end of it, but because I've held it myself many years ago. I actually held a position where my appointed duty was to care, and I did it, which is a great shame of mine even today. I don't neccessarily disagree with the statement itself in each and every case, but I've never seen it used to positive effects, and that's what's important to me.


However, if someone bullies me and damages my self-esteem, this does not negate my ability to think well of myself, and while the process may again take some time, it is something I can actively apply myself to, and if gone about well, attempts to 'use' my self-esteem in the meantime may in fact improve its state rather than hurting. And if someone is attempting to damage my self-esteem with insults or similar, I can stop the damage by choosing to devalue their opinion of me and ignore them.

This isn't true (or it may be true for you specifically, but not in the general case), a damaged self-esteem does indeed hurt your ability to think well of yourself. How would you otherwise explain how those inflicted with a crippling depression are left so unable to seek help for themselves, despite the fact that help actually exist.

Or taken a step further, suicides. It's hardly unheard of that bullying victims have comitted suicide after concluding that all is their fault and that the world will be much better off without them. Why would such tragedies happen if not because they've been rendered unable to think well of themselves.

[Winter_Wolf]

Maybe it's been said in different words maybe not, but it seems that aphorisms are highly contextual. They apply to either exactly one situation, or a very few situations which are very similar in nature and scope.

I didn't know that aphorism was the word to use, I always just called 'em "those funny/annoying/stupid sayings that people use but neither understand nor follow themselves." The problem is that people use the saying but they neglect to pass on the story behind it. Stop doing that! Of course by this time these aphorisms have been abused and co-opted to fit situations that they really shouldn't apply to, it's probably darn near impossible to get the actual story, and guaranteed impossible to get everyone to agree on it.

Chinese if chock full of aphorisms, but if you don't know the (often LONG) story behind the saying, it's confusing and meaningless. Oddly enough, a lot of Chinese people can't actually explain the saying when asked to do so. It's a bit of a shame because they were probably pretty interesting tales that would make the saying make sense.

I happen to agree with the Mark Twain quote in the OP, but I view it as a specific kind of insult which essentially means, "you SUCH an odious person, I'd rather spend eternity with the likes of Dahmer, Hitler, and Lector because they are less offensive to existence than you are." That's a pretty harsh condemnation. I've known 'a few' people like that by which I mean less than a hundred but more than five; I try not to spare them a second thought, as I have better things to do with my time.

[thubby]

For example, I'll pick one from Mark Twain (even if the first attribution is uncertain).
"I would choose Heaven for climate but Hell for company"

Really, Mark? Yeah, I know that girls can't resist "bad boys" and good guys can be boring... but I'm sorry, in Hell you won’t find James Dean, you’ll meet Jeffrey Dhamer. :smallannoyed:

you'd probably find both, is the point. it's a condemnation of impossible standards.

[Mystic Muse]

"You're one in a million"

So, there are 7,000 other people exactly like me. Thanks?

[GolemsVoice]

Yeeeeeaah, that's just taking thing a little too literally. Somebody made you a compliment. Shouldn't you be glad instead of responding like this?

[Mystic Muse]

Yeeeeeaah, that's just taking thing a little too literally. Somebody made you a compliment. Shouldn't you be glad instead of responding like this?

Oh, I know. I'm just pointing out the flaws with it, since that's what everybody else seems to be doing at the moment.:smalltongue:

I personally don't like it more because it's overused than anything, but I have no actual problem with it.

[Terraoblivion]

At least not in the physically abusive sense. But I think the phrase has evolved into the concept of giving a child structure and discipline. Allowing them to believe that their actions have no consequences and/or providing them everything upon demand will leave them with less potential than a child who has been taught to focus their intentions on valued achievements.

Hate to break it to you, but pretty large segments of the American population takes a literal interpretation of this line to be a central religious commandment, to the point where they publish careful instructions of the proper way to make and use said rod. I can't go into details due to board rules, but I know for a fact that it is quite common.

[Anarion]

Hate to break it to you, but pretty large segments of the American population takes a literal interpretation of this line to be a central religious commandment, to the point where they publish careful instructions of the proper way to make and use said rod. I can't go into details due to board rules, but I know for a fact that it is quite common.

Darn it, barely a page. Sigh. Why are there so many terrible people in existence?

[Dimonite]

Hate to break it to you, but pretty large segments of the American population takes a literal interpretation of this line to be a central religious commandment, to the point where they publish careful instructions of the proper way to make and use said rod. I can't go into details due to board rules, but I know for a fact that it is quite common.

As an American, I've never heard of this, actually. In fact, a study conducted in 1991 showed that over half of those surveyed would consider hitting a child with an object of some kind to be physical abuse, and based on other trends it's safe to assume that the number has only gone up from there. However, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that corporal punishment - not with an actual rod or other force multiplier, but in more general terms - is not always a bad thing.

[noparlpf]

Sometimes I wish they'd re-implement corporal punishment. Or at the very least that parents and schools would come up with some form of discipline that works. I'm in university and most of my peers don't seem to have learned respect or manners.

[Gnoman]

More sayings that bother me:

* Any variation of "Lead, follow or get out of the way", "if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes", "eat or be eaten", "swim with the sharks", etc. All pretty much boil down to "The world isn't a nice place, so you shouldn't be a nice person", which is rather self-fulfilling.


That's not what "lead, follow, or get out of the way means. It means that, both as a response to a specific problem or just life in general, that you should take the lead in getting things done if you know what to do. If you don't know what to do, then you should follow the direction of someone who does know. If you can't, or won't, help the situation, don't muck up things for the people who are. None of which has the slightest connotation of "the world isn't a nice place."

[Thufir]

This isn't true (or it may be true for you specifically, but not in the general case), a damaged self-esteem does indeed hurt your ability to think well of yourself. How would you otherwise explain how those inflicted with a crippling depression are left so unable to seek help for themselves, despite the fact that help actually exists?

Or taken a step further, suicides. It's hardly unheard of that bullying victims have comitted suicide after concluding that all is their fault and that the world will be much better off without them. Why would such tragedies happen if not because they've been rendered unable to think well of themselves?

Yes, it hurts their ability to think well of themselves, but it does not negate it.
to the suicide example - yes, people sometimes conclude the world would be better off without them. And sometimes someone will stop them committing suicide and convince them otherwise, clearly indicating that their ability to think well of themselves, though severely damaged, is not negated.

[Teddy]

Yes, it hurts their ability to think well of themselves, but it does not negate it.
to the suicide example - yes, people sometimes conclude the world would be better off without them. And sometimes someone will stop them committing suicide and convince them otherwise, clearly indicating that their ability to think well of themselves, though severely damaged, is not negated.

Okay, not negated per se, but when someone has had their ability to think well of themselves so badly hurt that they need help in order to not kill themselves, the difference is no longer relevant to the initial perspective, as the point behind that one was that they wouldn't need help to start with, as they'd have all they need available within themselves, which is what I'm arguing against.

[The Second]

Or sometimes you can break it while trying to improve it in a minor way. This is not a universal thing, but a fairly pervasive one which a lot of people and companies could stand to bear in mind and consider whether the improvements they can make are worth the problems they will cause.


You are absolutely right, we don't need cars that get 40+ MPG, We should obviously have stopped at the wheel.



Or, as someone else already noted, they could use their smarts to figure out a more efficient means of doing the work rather than just grinding away at it.


Instead of standing around talking about how to do it more efficiently, just get it done.



If the issue is you think the gift will leave you with some unfortunate consequences/costs, I would liken that more to looking a Trojan Horse in the mouth - a very sensible practice. The common aphorism, however, is entirely valid - it's a gift. It's not costing you anything. Regardless of any defects, it is of greater value than the nothing the gift-giver could have left you with.

"Hey thanks, you're giving me your old computer! Hm, the HD just went out... that's 50 bucks for a new one. It could really use a better GPU... 120 bucks. Gah, there goes the power supply...



...that's exactly how the phrase is supposed to work.


Yes, yes it is, and it is usually not the answer the person who uses it is not expecting.



You are either very wrong or working to a different and narrower definition of love than most people use.


Hm, how so? When you and the person you love begin to get closer, and especially when you start cohabitation, you start to notice things that may annoy you. She leaves the top off of the toothpaste, he has a suspicious looking mole, she doesn't take her shoes off when entering your house, he makes you take your shoes off every time you visit... Minor annoyances, true, but minor annoyances can become major ones if you let them.

Or are you l\telling me that the perfect person exists who has no bad habits, is a morning\evening\night person who doesn't care when you leave the toilet seat up or when you hang the paper backwards, who doesn't mind when your cat coughs up a hairball on the new carpet and listens to you intently when their favorite TV program is on?




Firstly, I've never heard of that being an aphorism prior to reading this post of yours. I have however heard of "Ignorance is bliss."
Secondly, the answer is definitely somewhere between the two. Some things I would rather not know, but many others will acutely arouse my curiosity.


I'll accept that. I still didn't need to know that tapeworn\ms can grow over two meters long, though.




Well, that's making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of the conversation in which the aphorism is being said to you.


Unwarranted? How so? What kind of conversation is it? The one sided variety in which someone I'd rather not have a conversation with is trying to give me some good advice out of the kindness of their heart? Hm, right, still not going to set out the honey for them.



Finally, in the course of responding to one of these I thought of one which annoys me:

Related to "YOLO", I've often seen on TV shows characters giving the advice to "Live each day like it's your last," or words to that effect.
Now, I can appreciate the sentiment, of not putting things off, seizing the moment, etc. But the phrasing bothers me, because if you take it literally, it makes no sense. If I decided to live each day literally as if it was the last day of my life, I would never apply for a job. I might skip out on rehearsals for shows I'm going to be in, taking the attitude that I may well not be alive to perform in them. I would neglect new acquaintances, because why bother getting to know new people when this could be the last time I talk to the friends I already have? I would also run up huge phone bills talking to people who I couldn't go see, or spend large amounts of money to go visit people who live far away but still within reach of a day's travel.
If you actually live each day like it was your last, you can't do anything long-term. And that's a pretty stupid attitude unless you actually do know you're going to die.

One day, while visiting my local Starbucks, I noticed a beautiful woman. The type that makes you look twice, makes your heart skip a beat, all that nonsense. She was sitting at a table, on her own, near the front window, and seemed to be studying a textbook.

My first instinct was to stop and ask if the empty seat was taken, maybe try to engage her in conversation about what she was studying, but I was in a hurry. It was starting to rain out, I hadn't brought my umbrella and I was carrying my laptop with me, in it's case, yes, but it still wouldn't do to have it get soaked.

I debated with myself a moment. I had never seen this woman at this Starbucks before, and I was a regular customer who was known to stop in at all hours for my coffee fix. It was likely I would not get another chance to talk to this woman. But if she was a transfer student at the local university, which was a stones throw away from this store, it was possible that I would see her again.

Common sense won out in the end, it wouldn't have been good to get caught in the rain with an $800 laptop because of stopping to talk to a woman who was just as likely to tell me to shove off as tell me the time of day. So I left without talking to her.

In the end, it never did start raining full force like I had worried it would. I also never did see the woman again. I don't kick myself for my decision, but sometimes I wonder what might have happened in I had just abandoned common sense and taken advantage of that moment in time.

[Teddy]

Instead of standing around talking about how to do it more efficiently, just get it done.

The funny part is how much this clashes with your sentiment on "If it isn't broken, don't fix it". After all, how would you ever achieve progress if you never stop to think of how you could become more efficient?

Or, to look at it from another way: Let's take the time, you get to work immediately, while I'll stand over here for a while and think of how I can be more efficient about it before I get to work as well, and then we'll see how long it'll take for me to catch up. Working harder does indeed yield results, but there are limits to how hard you can work, and if you can be more efficient about it, you've got a lot to win.

That said, this is one of the aphorisms that seldom get used in the right context, as efficiency optimisation is a long-term project, and thus won't help anyone in the short run (if you bar the really extreme cases).


Unwarranted? How so? What kind of conversation is it? The one sided variety in which someone I'd rather not have a conversation with is trying to give me some good advice out of the kindness of their heart? Hm, right, still not going to set out the honey for them.

Well, as has been pointed out, the aphorism is a way of saying that you get more people to agree with you by being nice to them rather than treating them badly, so if someone has told you this, and since people generally can withstand some discomfort before springing to action, it might very well mean that he though you were outright rude to your target audience, or is afraid that you will be in the future.

[Aedilred]

You are absolutely right, we don't need cars that get 40+ MPG, We should obviously have stopped at the wheel.

Well, only if you don't consider inefficient internal combustion engines to be something that's "broken". Which, given that they run on a finite resource, they probably are.

In fact, an argument could be made that all the evils of the motorcar stem from a misguided attempt to "fix" a perfectly adequate public transport system. Which is now broken, as a result of that attempt.

(Of course, in fact, the destruction of the public transport system was in many cases entirely deliberate on the part of car manufacturers).

[noparlpf]

You are absolutely right, we don't need cars that get 40+ MPG, We should obviously have stopped at the wheel.

One might argue that a car that gets less than forty miles to the gallon is broken.
One might also argue that the combustion engine is rather a broken concept on its own, and we should be spending our time on alternative energy sources for cars instead of trying to fix such a broken concept.


Instead of standing around talking about how to do it more efficiently, just get it done.

Spend three hours working inefficiently, or spend half an hour planning and then an hour working intelligently. Just as an example.


"Hey thanks, you're giving me your old computer! Hm, the HD just went out... that's 50 bucks for a new one. It could really use a better GPU... 120 bucks. Gah, there goes the power supply...

Hey, thanks for some parts I can salvage that otherwise I'd have had to pay for. You are looking this horse in the mouth so hard right now. Be a bit more positive.


Hm, how so? When you and the person you love begin to get closer, and especially when you start cohabitation, you start to notice things that may annoy you. She leaves the top off of the toothpaste, he has a suspicious looking mole, she doesn't take her shoes off when entering your house, he makes you take your shoes off every time you visit... Minor annoyances, true, but minor annoyances can become major ones if you let them.

Or are you l\telling me that the perfect person exists who has no bad habits, is a morning\evening\night person who doesn't care when you leave the toilet seat up or when you hang the paper backwards, who doesn't mind when your cat coughs up a hairball on the new carpet and listens to you intently when their favorite TV program is on?

Surprise, studies have shown that people in love tend to ignore or even convince themselves that they like their partners' negative traits.
So yes, quite blind.

[Kelb_Panthera]

After giving it some thought, I don't like "work smarter, not harder" either. It creates a false dichotomy. Why can't I work both smarter and harder?

You know what? Screw that. I'm gonna work harder and smarter and get it done before any half-wit that only does one or the other.

[GolemsVoice]

You are absolutely right, we don't need cars that get 40+ MPG, We should obviously have stopped at the wheel.

Again, that's NOT what this is about. It's not about never improving anything, it's about being careful when improving things. Especially when your new invention might destroy the old thing without improving it. A quicker car does not invalidate older cars when it fails. But if you patch a game, for example, and the new patch doesn't improve the game but ruins it, that's where it applies.


"Hey thanks, you're giving me your old computer! Hm, the HD just went out... that's 50 bucks for a new one. It could really use a better GPU... 120 bucks. Gah, there goes the power supply...

So, in the worst case, you throw it away and nobody gained anything. In any OTHER case, you have been given something you didn't have before, for free, and you only stand to gain from it.

[Thajocoth]

After giving it some thought, I don't like "work smarter, not harder" either. It creates a false dichotomy. Why can't I work both smarter and harder?

You know what? Screw that. I'm gonna work harder and smarter and get it done before any half-wit that only does one or the other.

It refers to not doing a lot of extra work you don't need to do. For example... If you have papers that need to be shredded, a pair of scissors & a paper shredder... It's harder work to use the scissors to cut up all the paper one sheet at a time. It's smarter work to put them all in the shredder, freeing up more time for you to do another task. You're essentially saying you'd put most of them in the shredder, but cut one sheet up with the scissors between shredder loads to finish slightly faster. Yes, your faster, but negligibly so, and you still spend a lot more of your energy that way which could be saved for another task.

[Generic Archer]

"Correlation does not imply causation" - Yes it damn well does... it does not guarantee it, it doesn't prove it, but it contains some evidence that causation occurred that warrants further investigation

The other one that bus me is something about the "problem with induction" but I can't recall the phrasing, no one says it around me with any regularity these days =p. - Induction is perfect, there is no problem with it, and what's more it is provable. Now I know that this stems from my background in physics/maths, and theirs in philosophy, but it still drives me mad

[THAC0]

"Correlation does not imply causation" - Yes it damn well does... it does not guarantee it, it doesn't prove it, but it contains some evidence that causation occurred that warrants further investigation



I've... never ever ever heard it said that way. It's always said "Correlation is not causation" or "Correlation does not equal causation."

[Kalmarvho]

I've... never ever ever heard it said that way. It's always said "Correlation is not causation" or "Correlation does not equal causation."

Or "correlation does not prove causation", or on the internet, "correlation =/= causation".

On the other hand, I googled it and wikipedia has it listed as "does not imply". Which sounds pretty silly, yeah - but then it does have a a good case as to why correlation should never be taken as the be-all and end-all.

[Teddy]

"Correlation does not imply causation" - Yes it damn well does... it does not guarantee it, it doesn't prove it, but it contains some evidence that causation occurred that warrants further investigation

I find it somewhat surprising that someone with a background in maths has a problem with this aphorism, but I suppose the mathematical field of logic isn't regularly touched upon unless you're into computing...

Basically, logical implication (⇒) dictates that if the statement to the left is true, then the statement to the right must invariably be true as well for the implication to be valid (the classical logical function → determines whether the implication is valid or not). So, "correlation does not imply causation" just means that there doesn't have to be causation just because a correlation can be found, which pretty much is exactly what you said.


The other one that bus me is something about the "problem with induction" but I can't recall the phrasing, no one says it around me with any regularity these days =p. - Induction is perfect, there is no problem with it, and what's more it is provable. Now I know that this stems from my background in physics/maths, and theirs in philosophy, but it still drives me mad

I think the problem is that you think of mathematical induction, which indeed is rigorous for as long as you keep an eye on your base cases (not all horses have the same colour just because it's true for the (flawed) base case of a set of 1 horse), and not inductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning), which is what the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) pertains to.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It refers to not doing a lot of extra work you don't need to do. For example... If you have papers that need to be shredded, a pair of scissors & a paper shredder... It's harder work to use the scissors to cut up all the paper one sheet at a time. It's smarter work to put them all in the shredder, freeing up more time for you to do another task. You're essentially saying you'd put most of them in the shredder, but cut one sheet up with the scissors between shredder loads to finish slightly faster. Yes, your faster, but negligibly so, and you still spend a lot more of your energy that way which could be saved for another task.

Corner case.

If instead you used the example of, say, building a house there would be ample opportunity to work both smart and hard.

In cases where smart V hard is an actual one or the other choice, yeah, smarter is usually the better course but many, if not most, times you can choose to do both for a greater net result than either individually.

It's the "not" in the saying that I take issue with. Without context it implies an either or choice must be made and that smarter is always the better choice, when this is not necessarily true.

[Traab]

Corner case.

If instead you used the example of, say, building a house there would be ample opportunity to work both smart and hard.

In cases where smart V hard is an actual one or the other choice, yeah, smarter is usually the better course but many, if not most, times you can choose to do both for a greater net result than either individually.

It's the "not" in the saying that I take issue with. Without context it implies an either or choice must be made and that smarter is always the better choice, when this is not necessarily true.

The point of the saying is that putting more effort into running into that brick wall isnt going to help matters much, using your brain and walking around it will. And when is there ever the exact opposite solution, work harder not smarter? Its always better to work smarter, its not always better to just work harder. *EDIT* Its also a saying that mainly applies to solving a problem. Work smarter not harder is not meant for everything you do in life, its a mantra to help you get past problems you are experiencing.

[Teddy]

It's the "not" in the saying that I take issue with. Without context it implies an either or choice must be made and that smarter is always the better choice, when this is not necessarily true.

I think it's meant to be used to respond to someone who complains about having to work too hard, while you think they can be more efficient about it. However, since optimisations take time, this is hardly a useful thing to tell someone with a close deadline, even though that's when people generally are complaining the most.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The point of the saying is that putting more effort into running into that brick wall isnt going to help matters much, using your brain and walking around it will. And when is there ever the exact opposite solution, work harder not smarter? Its always better to work smarter, its not always better to just work harder. *EDIT* Its also a saying that mainly applies to solving a problem. Work smarter not harder is not meant for everything you do in life, its a mantra to help you get past problems you are experiencing.

I do get what the expression was intended for, but there are many people out there that would take the ^ bold as heresy of the highest order.

Btw, I can give you an anecdotal example of a situation where harder was the better choice. When I worked at a fast-food joint, I'd have to take out the trash every night before closing. Since I wasn't the only one using the can I couldn't do anything to prevent people from overfilling it or not readjusting the bag, and all too often would have to take the whole can out to the dumpster that was just as often filled past the sliding panels.

I had the choice of either simply muscling the can over the top (harder) or getting a bit of rope I keep in my car for emergencies and rigging up a quick pulley system with the tree-branch over the dumpster (smarter). I'd invariably choose to just muscle the thing over the top because it was faster and I wanted to get home. Working a little harder was the better choice in that instance. God I hated that job.

[Teddy]

[...]
I had the choice of either simply muscling the can over the top (harder) or getting a bit of rope I keep in my car for emergencies and rigging up a quick pulley system with the tree-branch over the dumpster (smarter). I'd invariably choose to just muscle the thing over the top because it was faster and I wanted to get home. Working a little harder was the better choice in that instance. God I hated that job.

A point can be made here, however, that working harder was the smartest solution for you, seeing how it was the most efficient way of reaching your goals (i.e. get done quickly). If your goals had been to minimise the need for strainous manual labour, even if it came at the expedience of time, then the pulley system would've been smarter, but right now, I wouldn't say that it was.

In other words, don't confuse "smart" with "complex". Just because a solution looks ingenious doesn't mean it's actually superior.

[noparlpf]

I've... never ever ever heard it said that way. It's always said "Correlation is not causation" or "Correlation does not equal causation."

I've always seen it "correlation does not imply causation".


I find it somewhat surprising that someone with a background in maths has a problem with this aphorism, but I suppose the mathematical field of logic isn't regularly touched upon unless you're into computing...

Basically, logical implication (⇒) dictates that if the statement to the left is true, then the statement to the right must invariably be true as well for the implication to be valid (the classical logical function → determines whether the implication is valid or not). So, "correlation does not imply causation" just means that there doesn't have to be causation just because a correlation can be found, which pretty much is exactly what you said.

I think the problem is that you think of mathematical induction, which indeed is rigorous for as long as you keep an eye on your base cases (not all horses have the same colour just because it's true for the (flawed) base case of a set of 1 horse), and not inductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning), which is what the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) pertains to.

In that case, it's generally misunderstood because in common English "imply" means "kind of suggests but in no way conclusively proves".

Random thought, why are there so many forms for implicit, imply, implication, &c., but none for explicit?

[Kelb_Panthera]

A point can be made here, however, that working harder was the smartest solution for you, seeing how it was the most efficient way of reaching your goals (i.e. get done quickly). If your goals had been to minimise the need for strainous manual labour, even if it came at the expedience of time, then the pulley system would've been smarter, but right now, I wouldn't say that it was.

In other words, don't confuse "smart" with "complex". Just because a solution looks ingenious doesn't mean it's actually superior.

That's another thing that's problematic with that expression. Whether they should or not is irrelevant to the fact that many people do conflate smarter with more complex and harder with simpler or more strenuous when using that aphorism.

As you said how I priortized the time and effort portions of the problem does make a difference in which option is smarter and which is harder. The time and physical effort a given option takes are both quantifiable, but the weight and mental effort given each option isn't always so, and thus will vary from person to person. Then of course there's the issue of problems with given deadlines or minimum requirements for fulfillment and the comparative nature of smarter V harder when you're collaborating, where a smarter solution for you is a harder solution for your associate.

I'd say "efficiency before effort" is a much better expression with roughly the same meaning.

[Teddy]

In that case, it's generally misunderstood because in common English "imply" means "kind of suggests but in no way conclusively proves".

Agreed.


I'd say "efficiency before effort" is a much better expression with roughly the same meaning.

Yeah, I think it'll get the point across... *nods*

[Squark]

I've... never ever ever heard it said that way. It's always said "Correlation is not causation" or "Correlation does not equal causation."

I've heard it said that way a lot. And the reason it gets said a lot? People still make that mistake a lot.

I think part of kelb's issue might be imply has stronger connotations for some people than others.


Hm, how so? When you and the person you love begin to get closer, and especially when you start cohabitation, you start to notice things that may annoy you. She leaves the top off of the toothpaste, he has a suspicious looking mole, she doesn't take her shoes off when entering your house, he makes you take your shoes off every time you visit... Minor annoyances, true, but minor annoyances can become major ones if you let them. You're misunderstanding what the saying means by love. It's intended to refer to how some people remain ignorant of some things about the person they're in love with. It's also generally used either in hindsight, or to comment on someone in the early stage of a relationship.

[Killer Angel]

This is not annoying, but I find it funny.
"if you want something done, do it yourself"
Right, but... didn't "union makes us stronger"?

You're not helping! what should I do? to work alone, or to work in a team? :smalltongue:

[Aedilred]

This is not annoying, but I find it funny.
"if you want something done, do it yourself"
Right, but... didn't "union makes us stronger"?

You're not helping! what should I do? to work alone, or to work in a team? :smalltongue:
Both. Either, depending on the circumstance. They're not contradictory. The former indicates that if you want something to be done, do something about it yourself. That might be gathering together a group of like-minded people to help you tackle the problem, if it's not something you're capable of doing on your own.

The message of the former, I think, is "don't sit around and expect/demand everyone else give priority to things you want to happen" rather than "do everything on your own".

[EtherianBlade]

Not sure if these have been mentioned before, but I'm not wading through every page on this thread to check.

"Just keeping it real."

That this statement is almost always uttered by someone who has just said or done something incredibly rude, selfish or tactless is annoying enough. But that the words themselves and the implication behind them mean . . . what, exactly, makes the saying even more so. Just how is anyone "keeping it real" by being rude and selfish? Do they think "real" people are like that?

Grr.

And the next time someone tells me "there's a method to my madness" I think I'm going to slap them.

[Zrak]

Do they think "real" people are like that?

Have you met real people? That's pretty much exactly what most of them are like. :smalltongue:

[noparlpf]

And the next time someone tells me "there's a method to my madness" I think I'm going to slap them.

There's definitely a madness to my method.

[Thajocoth]

Have you met real people? That's pretty much exactly what most of them are like. :smalltongue:

My experience says otherwise.

[Winter_Wolf]

This is not annoying, but I find it funny.
"if you want something done, do it yourself"
Right, but... didn't "union makes us stronger"?

You're not helping! what should I do? to work alone, or to work in a team? :smalltongue:

I've always heard it as "if you want something done right, do it yourself."

Which I firmly believe, since I'm usually the only one doing anything other than bitching about how much I have to do. I have also never been blessed with teammates who actually, y'know, contribute to the team effort. I am no longer "a team player" as a result.

[Traab]

I've always heard it as "if you want something done right, do it yourself."

Which I firmly believe, since I'm usually the only one doing anything other than bitching about how much I have to do. I have also never been blessed with teammates who actually, y'know, contribute to the team effort. I am no longer "a team player" as a result.

I was going to make that change to the saying myself, you beat me to it. I always took that to mean that its very difficult in many scenarios to get something done exactly the way you wanted it, unless you do it yourself. I use myself as evidence as it seems I cant go on a simple shopping run for my family to save them the trip without screwing it up somehow.

*EDIT* Tattoos is another one. Do you have any idea how hard it can be to get your idea across to the artist precisely enough for him to draw out exactly what you are after? Much better if you are an artist to draw the concept yourself.

[noparlpf]

I was going to make that change to the saying myself, you beat me to it. I always took that to mean that its very difficult in many scenarios to get something done exactly the way you wanted it, unless you do it yourself. I use myself as evidence as it seems I cant go on a simple shopping run for my family to save them the trip without screwing it up somehow.

*EDIT* Tattoos is another one. Do you have any idea how hard it can be to get your idea across to the artist precisely enough for him to draw out exactly what you are after? Much better if you are an artist to draw the concept yourself.

Tattoo artists should all have to have English degrees. The number of tattoos with misspellings and poor punctuation I've seen (pictures of online)...

[GolemsVoice]

I guess that's often the result of people being cheapskates. Spending little money on an MP3 player means you'll get a device that'll break in a few months. Spending little money on tattoos means you get a present forever.

[Killer Angel]

I've always heard it as "if you want something done right, do it yourself."

Yep, you're right.


Both. Either, depending on the circumstance. They're not contradictory. (snip)

I know, and I agree. Only, i tend to use the apparent contradiction as a sort of joke: when someone cites one of the two, i refer to the other one just to have a little fun. :smallwink:

[Jay R]

This is not annoying, but I find it funny.
"if you want something done, do it yourself"
Right, but... didn't "union makes us stronger"?

You're not helping! what should I do? to work alone, or to work in a team? :smalltongue:

Both. If you want something done (or done right), stop complaining about it and do the work.

If five of you want something done (or done right), stop complaining about it and do the work as a team. It'll get done faster.

[Aedilred]

If five of you want something done (or done right), stop complaining about it and do the work as a team. It'll get done faster.
Unless too many cooks are spoiling the broth. After all, if you want to kill an idea, get a committee working on it.

[Gravitron5000]

Both. If you want something done (or done right), stop complaining about it and do the work.

If five of you want something done (or done right), stop complaining about it and do the work as a team. It'll get done faster.

Wouldn't you say that that's working smarter, not harder :smallbiggrin:

[EtherianBlade]

My experience says otherwise.

Ditto.

For the most part . . . .

[Karoht]

Though dated, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Roughly translated, "I don't want to accept any responsibility, and I don't want other people to think poorly of me for taking advantage/gaming the system/being a waste of flesh, so I'll suggest that it isn't my fault, it is actually the fault of the establishment.

When ever anyone says this anywhere NEAR me, my response is as follows:
"So I should hate the sport of Football for turning Michael Vick into a jerksauce who saw ZERO problems with animal suffering, to the point where he participated in dog fights? Okay, great, I hate football. For STILL paying a guy like Michael Vick, along with a host of other jerksauces with similar rap sheets."
Which is immediately met with defense of the sport.
And I secretly laugh inside.


"It takes two to tango"
Typically aimed at adults when NEITHER party wishes to take responsibility. Used as a bridge to suggest that BOTH should take SOME responsibility.
Because I've met very few adults who take ANY responsibility at all.
Still, an awkward phrase when you think about it.


"Nothing that comes easy lasts, nothing that lasts comes easy."
Lasting environmental damage is a thing. And it's pretty darned easy. Chop down a tree or two. Or better yet, read up about a place called The Salton Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea_State_Recreation_Area


"Use your words"
In dealing with bullies, whom historically haven't given a rats arse about what someone says, typically the reason WHY they are punching someone.
Also, the expectation to use your words WHILE said bully is punching you in the face.



"Work smarter, not harder." Ok then, smart yourself out of a job, see if I care. Note that I only hear this coming from people who would rather not work in the first place.I would rather not work in the first place. It's also inefficient to have someone work when there is a smarter solution.
However, 'work smarter' also implies to me, make your day easier and easier, and be more productive by using your brain rather than JUST your arm. Smarter application of hard work is better than just trying to muscle through something.


I had the choice of either simply muscling the can over the top (harder) or getting a bit of rope I keep in my car for emergencies and rigging up a quick pulley system with the tree-branch over the dumpster (smarter). I'd invariably choose to just muscle the thing over the top because it was faster and I wanted to get home. Working a little harder was the better choice in that instance. God I hated that job.
Evaluating both options rather than blindly picking one or the other IS working smarter. In the specific example you chose the more efficient option, and would have done so anyway. A less energetic person might have wasted time and resources trying to outsmart the task by rigging up the pulley system. You were still working smarter by picking the superior method.

And yes, working smart and working hard are NOT mutually exclusive.
Much the same way working well independantly or teams are also not mutually exclusive either.

[Chen]

When ever anyone says this anywhere NEAR me, my response is as follows:
"So I should hate the sport of Football for turning Michael Vick into a jerksauce who saw ZERO problems with animal suffering, to the point where he participated in dog fights? Okay, great, I hate football. For STILL paying a guy like Michael Vick, along with a host of other jerksauces with similar rap sheets."
Which is immediately met with defense of the sport.
And I secretly laugh inside.

You realize this isn't what the quote refers to right? It refers to justification in activities as a RESULT of the rules of the game. Not justification of activities that happen to occur to someone who plays the game. Vick's dogfighting has nothing to do with football. Something like tackling someone extremely hard and viciously, but within the rules of the game would be something you could apply this to.

[Karoht]

You realize this isn't what the quote refers to right? It refers to justification in activities as a RESULT of the rules of the game. Not justification of activities that happen to occur to someone who plays the game. Vick's dogfighting has nothing to do with football. Something like tackling someone extremely hard and viciously, but within the rules of the game would be something you could apply this to.
Specifically in regards to Mr Vick, I've heard people say that line in defense of his actions. Trolling or not.

It's still a poor defense of jerksauce players who go out of their way to hurt other players. Some of the more recent Hockey incidents come to mind. The game doesn't make an enforcer go out and put someone in the hospital. The game does not have rules that suggest or even encourage this as a legitimate tactic. It has plenty of rules for what constitutes and illegal hit, with more rules being added or modified as needed. So no, I don't blame hockey or football for some spitwad of a human being going out with the intent to harm someone beyond reasonable limits. Especially when said spitwad is paid millions of dollars per year to be kept on a bench for the express purpose of going out to harm other players. I blame the player and the coach, not the game.

[Mewtarthio]

It's still a poor defense of jerksauce players who go out of their way to hurt other players. Some of the more recent Hockey incidents come to mind. The game doesn't make an enforcer go out and put someone in the hospital. The game does not have rules that suggest or even encourage this as a legitimate tactic. It has plenty of rules for what constitutes and illegal hit, with more rules being added or modified as needed. So no, I don't blame hockey or football for some spitwad of a human being going out with the intent to harm someone beyond reasonable limits. Especially when said spitwad is paid millions of dollars per year to be kept on a bench for the express purpose of going out to harm other players. I blame the player and the coach, not the game.

I don't think the aphorism is supposed to be about literal games. I think the meaning is more along the lines of "Don't waste your energy hating the one particular person who exploited the system; use your energy fixing the system so no one can ever do it again."

In theory. In practice, it usually means "Ha, ha, ha! You can't touch me! Oh, did I make you angry? Too bad! Maybe you should write your Congressman or something, 'cuz I've beaten the system! *raspberry*!"

[Zrak]

I still wish I knew an aphorism to offer this thread about the difference between something intended literally and something intended as a metaphor. Hopefully a really literal one, I guess, or people would flip out about how you could never apply it to anything.

[warty goblin]

I still wish I knew an aphorism to offer this thread about the difference between something intended literally and something intended as a metaphor. Hopefully a really literal one, I guess, or people would flip out about how you could never apply it to anything.

I think the exception that proves the rule works pretty well for that.

[Jay R]

I think the exception that proves the rule works pretty well for that.

"The exception that proves the rule" is a victim of changing language. When the phrase was first used, "prove" meant "test". It meant the exception that tests the rule - by exploring the rule's boundaries..

[Killer Angel]

"The exception that proves the rule" is a victim of changing language. When the phrase was first used, "prove" meant "test". It meant the exception that tests the rule - by exploring the rule's boundaries..

Wiki is on target, on this one.
The original meaning of this idiom, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule)

[PlusSixPelican]

"Don't be afraid to go out on a limb, that's where the fruit is."
What the ass is that even about? I can get fruit at the store.

[Mystic Muse]

"Don't be afraid to go out on a limb, that's where the fruit is."
What the ass is that even about? I can get fruit at the store.

I think it's a way of saying "Don't be afraid to take risks, the reward will be worth it." which is not always true of course, but it makes more sense if you think of it like that.

[PlusSixPelican]

I think it's a way of saying "Don't be afraid to take risks, the reward will be worth it." which is not always true of course, but it makes more sense if you think of it like that.

I guess, but still. The one aphorism-ing at me is still not the one having to make a Climb check on a metaphor tree to reach for hypothetical fruit.

Here's an aphorism I use all the time, but I admit is probably hella annoying:
"A witty saying proves nothing."
~Voltaire

It's basically an anti-aphorisim aphorism. Kinda like Anti-Magic Field.

[Anarion]

Here's an aphorism I use all the time, but I admit is probably hella annoying:
"A witty saying proves nothing."
~Voltaire

It's basically an anti-aphorisim aphorism. Kinda like Anti-Magic Field.

The problem with that one isn't that it's wrong (it's context dependent) but rather that it makes you look like a jerk because there's basically no cause to use it unless you want to insult someone.

[PlusSixPelican]

The problem with that one isn't that it's wrong (it's context dependent) but rather that it makes you look like a jerk because there's basically no cause to use it unless you want to insult someone.

Yeah, that's kinda the point. Aphoristic evidence doesn't substantiate an argument (nor should it be considered to), and that's usually my reply in a friendly debate. Granted, using an aphorism to explain that aphorisms have little value's a bit hypocritical and tongue in cheek, but I'm respecting the theoretical other person enough to try and ask them for a legitimate point rather than a catchphrase.

Wow that kinda ran long. Guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

SPEAKING OF

"That's the way the cookie crumbles."
This one makes no sense, and feels kinda dumb.

[Capt Spanner]

I think we all need to remember quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

[PlusSixPelican]

I think we all need to remember quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

Grooooooan don't remind me of selfie Latin lessons. Anyways, anything in Latin sounds profound unless you know latin.

Here's a line from Catullus.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo

In Latin, it sounds nifty.
In English, it's not something you'd say in polite company. In fact, the poem it's from (Catullus 16) is basically fourteen lines of puerile criticism of some people Catullus didn't like.

And for good measure, another aphorism that's just plain uggh:
"Good fences make good neighbors."

[Zea mays]

Grooooooan don't remind me of selfie Latin

And for good measure, another aphorism that's just plain uggh:
"Good fences make good neighbors."

That one makes plenty of sense in a rural setting, such as where I live. Our neighbor's horses keep breaking into our yard. :smallmad:

[noparlpf]

I'm going to go with "good fences make awful neighbours" because mine just ruined several feet of the edge of my yard carting in stones and dirt to level out their yard and make a new wall so they could then also build a new fence that's only technically not higher than zoning allows because it starts on top of a wall and not on the ground.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't see why good fences shouldn't make good neighbors. Good fences give everyone their proper personal space, with good gates for those whom they choose to allow in.

[otakuryoga]

i always considered "I could care less" to be only half a saying
the full saying being: I could care less, but it would take too much effort to actually do so
:smallyuk:

[Aedilred]

i always considered "I could care less" to be only half a saying
the full saying being: I could care less, but it would take too much effort to actually do so
:smallyuk:
It would take much less convolution and confusion just to add the extra syllable to make it make sense on its own, though, and the meaning would be so close as to be pretty much identical given that we're dealing in hyperbole anyway.

[noparlpf]

i always considered "I could care less" to be only half a saying
the full saying being: I could care less, but it would take too much effort to actually do so
:smallyuk:

According to Wiktionary and World Wide Words its etymology is actually just "couldn't care less" minus the negative that gives it sensible meaning. But, WWW says some people suggest it was originally meant sarcastically ("as if there were anything else about which I could care less"). In any case, now it's just people people who don't know how to talk properly.

[Raimun]

Don't leave a citrus in the open, that's when the canaries arrive.

I think this one makes no sense.

[noparlpf]

Don't leave a citrus in the open, that's when the canaries arrive.

What does that even mean?

[Killer Angel]

What does that even mean?

I'm going to echo the question. It's the first time I've heard of such an aphorism, but I'm no native speaker.

[noparlpf]

I'm going to echo the question. It's the first time I've heard of such an aphorism, but I'm no native speaker.

That post is the only Google result for it. Is it translated from another language?

[Killer Angel]

That post is the only Google result for it. Is it translated from another language?

You're right, the search doesn't give a hint. Probably it's the (literal?) translation of a proverb, but I've no idea.

[Raimun]

Heh, I really hope you guys didn't put too much effort into figuring this one out. :smallamused:

[noparlpf]

Heh, I really hope you guys didn't put too much effort into figuring this one out. :smallamused:

Not really, just did a quick Google and decided it was incomprehensible. Care to explain?

[Raimun]

Not really, just did a quick Google and decided it was incomprehensible. Care to explain?

All the aphorisms I was going to list were already mentioned. I tried to think something else and suddenly that one hit me.

So, a deliberate attempt at confusion.

[Killer Angel]

So, a deliberate attempt at confusion.

Apparently, it worked. :smalltongue:

But not having an aphorism at disposal, shouldn't be an issue.
For example, with a quick search of "aphorisms Mark Twain" you'll have a page (http://www.aphorismsandaphorisms.com/authors/Mark_Twain_aphorisms.html) full of quotes to choose from... :smallwink:

[Mystic Muse]

Don't leave a citrus in the open, that's when the canaries arrive.

If something you have is desirable, and don't take any measures to protect it, others will come along and take it.

*Decides to try to add meaning to something that's apparently meaningless*:smalltongue:

[Bulldog Psion]

"Great minds think alike", already mentioned, probably heads my "annoying" list.

Yes, because thinking in absolutely identical terms to other people and in a totally unoriginal way is an infallible sign of genius. :smalltongue:

[Anarion]

"Great minds think alike", already mentioned, probably heads my "annoying" list.

Yes, because thinking in absolutely identical terms to other people and in a totally unoriginal way is an infallible sign of genius. :smalltongue:

While I admit that thinking the same way as someone else hardly indicates a great mind, I've never used that expression when people were being unoriginal. I usually use it when I and someone else both find the optimal solution to a problem at the same time, which is usually surprising because it seemed creative and we both reached the same solution. Thus, we both feel smart.

[Mewtarthio]

While I admit that thinking the same way as someone else hardly indicates a great mind, I've never used that expression when people were being unoriginal. I usually use it when I and someone else both find the optimal solution to a problem at the same time, which is usually surprising because it seemed creative and we both reached the same solution. Thus, we both feel smart.

It works best taken less as a rule and more as an observation (eg "Here are two great minds, and in this particular instance, they are thinking alike").

[Badgerish]

"Great minds think alike", already mentioned, probably heads my "annoying" list.In my family "Great minds think alike..." is a call for the response "...and fools rarely differ".