Examples of Stupid Idioms
- Thread starter AnathemicOne
- Start date
Now they are cherry-picking quotes from an explanation that explicitly contradicts their usage. Troll thread is trolling.
No, idioms are a specific thing, just because you are using it to represent a logical fallacy it doesn't mean that it loses its identity as an idiom, that makes no sense at all.
Figures of speech remain figures of speech when used in that context, they don't get distilled into their literal parts, losing their metaphorical meaning.
So there's no actual ambiguity because the meaning of the idiom is known. It could only ever be seen as ambiguous if you are ignorant of its meaning, but that's not the idiom's fault.
elrechazado
Banned
Easier to understand for people who can understand very simple concepts and speak a minimal amount of English. Some people around here don't meet those requirements.
supernormal
Member
I love this thread.
OP, what does this sentence mean?
I have to have my cake now.
...or better yet.
I have this cake here, but we have to have it now.
OP, what does this sentence mean?
I have to have my cake now.
...or better yet.
I have this cake here, but we have to have it now.
This is, as far as I know, a common point.
The concept of sequencing implied by the phrase is a bit issue for the "have and it eat it" version, the version you present is more in line with the figurative meaning and it is actually a pretty commonly used one as well.
Oh youve gone and done it now! Incoming 12 pages about why would you want to eat the cake when youre already eating a cake thats been eaten.
eat
AnathemicOne
Banned
How doesn't it make sense? Pointing out a logical fallacy has a logical meaning, like strawman, ad hominem, etc. In case of the Latin-rooted fallacy terms, they are their literal meaning. Why should an idiom be exempt from that?
"I have to eat my cake now"
"I have this cake here but we eat to eat it now." This sounds redundant. Better to say "I have this cake here but we're going to eat it now."
You call me a troll, I'm trying to be genuine here. From the article, an entire passage.
[Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed "have" one's cake and then "eat" it. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn't match the metaphorical meaning. The phrase can also have specialized meaning in academic contexts; Classicist Katharina Volk of Columbia University has used the phrase to describe the development of poetic imagery in Latin didactic poetry, naming the principle behind the imagery's adoption and application the "have-one's-cake-and-eat-it-too principle".]
OP:
~~
The strange thing is that OP seems to accept that "to eat" in this idiom involves eating it in its completion and yet is now claiming that they'll take a selfie eating cake as if that makes the idiom incorrect.
UncleSporky
Member
The phrase isn't "you can't have cake," it's YOUR cake specifically. This is a single object, not a vague amount of "cake." Your cake ceases to be a single, solitary cake once you take a bite of it. It's a partially eaten cake, or what could be called "the rest of your cake" at that point.
I'm fairly positive this whole thread is an elaborate ruse to be allowed to eat an entire cake. Just eat it, OP, you can double up on the workouts for a week or so.
AnathemicOne
Banned
OP:
~~
The strange thing is that OP seems to accept that "to eat" in this idiom involves eating it in its completion and yet is now claiming that they'll take a selfie eating cake as if that makes the idiom incorrect.
No, I never accepted that. My argument is at follows:
Regarding the idiom "You can't have your cake and eat it too" is stupid in that
A) You have to have your cake in the first place in order to eat it
B) When you are eating cake, you are having cake, at the same time
C) One should not be ashamed for eating cake.
First of all "Can't have your cake and eat it too" is not the name of any specific logical fallacy, so the comparison with Ad hominem and Strawman fallacy is neither here nor there.
Secondly, idioms are not exempt from that as there's no formal requirements for declarations of logical fallacy to be strictly literal, your question, again, is puzzling as it seems to imply rules that never have existed. If I use a metaphor to describe fallacious reasoning, I'm not doing anything wrong, as metaphors are not fallacies.
I would also have to ask you what an Argumentum ad lapidem would mean, literally speaking, as its meaning is entirely derived from a specific anecdote.
If you're serious with this comment, I would pay all the money in the world to sit you down and explain it to you like you're 5.
Which, by the way, is what I referring to. Once you eat your cake, you don't have it. You stop having it. It's eaten.
What about cake burps? The idiom doesn't take into account cake burps
HollowCentral
Member
That's always bothered me about the movie. I think it's probably goes until the sun goes up, but it's not explained, so that's just my personal way of coping. Probably one of my favorite movies, but it annoys me.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Again, who eats an entire cake in one sitting? And on another note, nowhere in the idiom implies future tense. People keep bringing up the future tense, the idiom in no way shape or form implies that.
Your cake is the amount that you are going to eat though. Anything you don't eat is just free cake unless you're a selfish asshole. You aren't selfish, are you?
You said you were Japanese, you know how small cakes can be.
supernormal
Member
Now you've established that even in the context of food have doesn't have to mean eat. You pick the definition of the word that makes the most sense with the context given. What you're doing is cherry picking one possible interpretation and using it prove a point against the common sense interpretation.
You can literally say " you can't have your cake, and have it too" and make sense. It would be more confusing, but you would still easily arrive at the point.
AnathemicOne
Banned
I live in California, I know how big cakes can be. We are in the context of a Western society yeah (even Japan has full on American-sized cakes)?
That sounds sweet and disgusting.
Like when your girl farts when showing you a new dress she just bought.
Now I know you're trolling.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Yes I am, because the idiom is often uttered as a logical fallacy. In terms of an argument I'm not going to bring up a vague metaphor to declare fallacy, that's contradictory. If people say "No you can't do that, you're having your cake and eating it too" my rebuttal is always "so? If I have the cake I'm going to eat it."
but
We're not talking half a cake. We're not talking just a slice of cake. We're talking about the whole cake.
It doesn't matter how long it takes you to eat the whole thing. The point is that, once you've already eaten the whole cake, you no longer own that cake. Because you ate it.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Where in the idiom implies future tense? Tell me, what word, or predicate? If I have the cake I will eat it due to the primary purpose of the cake and the fact that having = eating.
You forgot my backup cake, an easy mistake to make
To be honest, this brings into question as to what a cake is.
For example, if the cake is half eaten, is it still cake?
What if you cut the cake in half? You have two cakes, don't you?
What if you keep doing that? Is a crumb still a cake?
There is to be a cutoff point...
(or is the whole undisturbed cake, the metaphorical cake in this idiom? I wonder)
For example, if the cake is half eaten, is it still cake?
What if you cut the cake in half? You have two cakes, don't you?
What if you keep doing that? Is a crumb still a cake?
There is to be a cutoff point...
(or is the whole undisturbed cake, the metaphorical cake in this idiom? I wonder)
elrechazado
Banned
I eat this cake here, but we eat to eat it now. Duh
AnathemicOne
Banned
I'll still take the fallacy as literal, an appeal to the stone, the physical stone is a fallacy both metaphorically and literally.
Consider this, the future tense is implied because the idiom wouldn't make sense otherwise.
Jon Carter
Member
That cake expression is stupid. That you can make sense of it doesn't matter, it's still poorly phrased. Expressions shouldn't be poorly phrased. Is there any language with an equivalent expression? I know French doesn't, and it's because it's terrible.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Implication doesn't hold scrutiny as a logical fallacy declaration when it it often used. Again if someone tells me that I'm ignoring a tradeoff of sorts and declare "You can't have your cake and eat it too" my rebuttal would be "Yes I can, that's the purpose of the cake, to eat it."
The idiom describes a hypothetical future. Think of it as a conditional sentence (eg: If you eat your cake, you won't have it too).
bonesmccoy
Banned
If you build it, they will come
Heroes get remembered, but legends never die
All hail Jobu
Heroes get remembered, but legends never die
All hail Jobu
Jon Carter
Member
** ***** *** ** *********** ********** *** *** **** ******
WAT
AnathemicOne
Banned
That's not how its used in arguments though. People declare that "one cannot have cake and eat it too" as if to shame the person. There's no future tense or hypothetical here.
I realised quick enough to stealth edit but you just had to broadcast my mistake to the world, didn't you? ;(
Trust me, it's hypothetical.
What's an example that you've heard? I've never heard it used in this way.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Bullshit, if one wanted to use a hypothetical in an example one would preface it. Shoving a hypothetical metaphor with no context is poor arguing. Hence why the idiom is stupid, hence the thread title.
I'm saying that's my interpretation of it. I fail to see how its wrong given the context of the idiom in how its worded.
Wait, what? I've never heard of this.
OP, the idiom is just stating that you generally can't enjoy the benefits of an item and still retain that whole, unused item. It's really not about "logical fallacy declarations" or the purpose of the cake or the guilt of eating cake or whatever else you're trying to mold it into.
If you have 5 dollars and you spend that 5 dollars you don't have the same five dollars left. Is that true or not, OP?
Jon Carter
Member
Fine, your mistake is now censored. No one will ever know. My fingers are sealed.
AnathemicOne
Banned
That's true, the idiom isn't "You can't spend money and have it too" its "You can't have cake and eat it too". Hell even "have" in your example is switched in the idiom.
elrechazado
Banned
Why are you eating five dollars????
lol, thanks, I appreciate it.