Examples of Stupid Idioms
- Thread starter AnathemicOne
- Start date
AnathemicOne
Banned
I put the modifier there because that's what the idiom uses. "You can't have the cake and eat it too"
This is what you said before:
I was pointing out that one of those is totally incorrect.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Okay I'll relent on that point, regarding the idiom however, I fail to see how my interpretation isn't valid in grammatical sense.
I may be a lowdown, no good 50 PPP gaffer, but at least I understand that you can't consume something and still possess the whole thing afterwards.
AnathemicOne
Banned
In order to eat something you have to have it.
Maybe because pretty much everyone other than you has no problem interpretating it that way. That right there should be your first hint.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Why shouldn't I eat the cake while having it?
NO
NOT THAT
I CAN'T
What nobody except for you has trouble understanding is that the phrase is used to say "you can't eat a cake and continue to own said cake once you already ate all of it."
Earthbound64
Banned
AnathemicOne
Banned
Of course you can. Who the hell eats an entire cake in one sitting?
Sure, but you won't have the thing after you eat it.
This?! Again?! Man you're going in circles tonight, are you trolling?
Were literally back to the first page again haha.
This thread needs locking. Its rage inducing.
finalflame
Banned
How are we still arguing the cake thing this far into the thread? If you don't understand the particular idiom "You can't eat your cake, and have it too", the problem lies with you, no the idiom. Or you're being intentionally dense/contrarian. The concept is simple: you can't have something both ways for situations where a tradeoff is needed.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO EAT THE WHOLE CAKE IN ONE SITTING FOR THE SAYING TO STILL MAKE SENSE
UncleSporky
Member
As I said earlier, once you begin eating a cake, you no longer own the original cake. You cannot be said to have a cake. What you have at that point is a partially-eaten cake. It has changed forms.
Escape Goat
Member
You cant have your cake and a 7% body fat too.
AnathemicOne
Banned
We are back to the same point because I've yet to get a satisfactory answer. The only thing I've relented on is that "have" does not necessarily mean eat, but it does with a modifier like "will" or "can". The idiom uses the "can" modifier.
In terms of cake you can. I can have this cake and eat it too because:
A) I'm having the cake, thus eating it.
and
B) I ate this piece of cake, I still have more cake.
and also
C) I shouldn't be ashamed of consuming cake, unless its for fatshaming.
But yet its still cake. We don't typically call partially-eating cake partially-eaten cake, no, we call it cake.
CrazyIvan1978
Member
Jesus Fucking Christ, What is this Shit.
Earthbound64
Banned
whatsinaname
Member
A masterful troll job. The other explanation is not very flattering to the OP.
Earthbound64
Banned
Tag fishing.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Wait Joe means horse? Sloppy Joes is horsemeat?
Earthbound64
Banned
finalflame
Banned
So you're trying to be intentionally dense then. Roger that.
whatsinaname
Member
AnathemicOne
Banned
Hardly, I'm saying the idiom of "You can't have your cake and eat it too" is stupid, hence the thread title. People are arguing that it isn't stupid I'm claiming otherwise. My arguments are yet to be disproven.
"Bring" is the context here. As in inviting someone over.
"I'd love to have you both for dinner" sounds weird by itself.
Escape Goat
Member
Modbot happens.
HammerFace
Banned
I came in here expecting a nice little thread on idioms.
That is not what I got.
That is not what I got.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Help me understand people, why can't I have the cake and eat it too? I'll buy some cake and post picture of me eating it at the same time if I have to.
Nah, you're just being incredibly dense.
elrechazado
Banned
It's times like these that gaf having shadow bans would be really apt.
Op: This doesn't mean gaf eats shadow bans, or that they would ban your shadow.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Again, how is me "having the cake and eating it at the same time" a fallacy?
Of course it doesn't the context of food consumption isn't there. Context is key.
finalflame
Banned
Your arguments have been disproven many times over and you're being intentionally dense and pedantic. The idiom refers to eating the ENTIRE cake -- if you eat the cake, you no longer have it. It's been eaten.
Here, go read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
If you can seriously continue to believe that you're right and everyone else making valid arguments to disprove you is wrong then, well, keep living life that way. If you're just getting a kick out of being contrarian, then I hope it's making for a fun Sunday.
Your argument is basically that the choice of words is not specific enough. It's not a stupid idiom, you just misinterpreted it.
I asked once, but I'll ask again as I didn't get an actual answer.
Why do you keep ignoring that your idea that the meaning of idioms is derived from their literal sense and from the context they are used in is wrong?
Idioms carry their own meaning and context, as agreed upon by the speakers of the language the idiom is used in. It's basically their very definition.
So, no, context is not to be assumed given the situation with idioms as much as it is the case for the verb to have. That has no consequence on the idiom itself, as the meaning is specific.
Your idea that the idiom is stupid because it requires you to know its context without it being found in the phrase or its surroundings is therefore kind of peculiar, because it just highlights a misunderstanding of what idioms are and how they work.
Post a picture after youve finished eating it and explain how you still have cake.
And no, not a half eaten cake, thats just made up restrictions in your head.
The simple fact is: if you have cake, then you eat cake, you no longer have cake.
Its time to accept that you are incapable of understanding it. We all have our limits.
You can't have your limits and beat them too
AnathemicOne
Banned
From the very same link you've provided [In English, "have" can mean "eat", as in "Let's have breakfast" or "I'm having a sandwich". So the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it too" may mean that you can't eat the cake and then eat it again; or less metaphorically, that what you want is unreasonable.] Yes, it unreasonable that I can't have the cake and eat it, if I have the fucking cake.
The link provided above states otherwise. I'm not the only one confused apparently.
Because the idiom is used as a logical fallacy example where logic is paramount. It should follow that the idiom should follow logic as well with no ambiguity right?
Cake can be plural. Also, a half-eaten cake is still called a cake.
Are you 5?
For the longest time I thought that the idiom was talking about making your own cake and eating too, which would be selfish. but I was wrong lol
The idiom says "you can't have your cake and eat it too". When in fact it should say "you can't eat your cake and have it too". It is easier to comprehend, and makes more sense.
The idiom says "you can't have your cake and eat it too". When in fact it should say "you can't eat your cake and have it too". It is easier to comprehend, and makes more sense.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Are you 5? Who the hell shames people for eating cake.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Ya'll are wrong about the cake thing
Because even if you eat your cake, you still have it in your stomach. In fact you hold your cake until it exits your body, which can take up to a week.
It's a very stupid idiom.
Because even if you eat your cake, you still have it in your stomach. In fact you hold your cake until it exits your body, which can take up to a week.
It's a very stupid idiom.
