A ridiculous question

[Slut_boy]

Okay, this may be silly but tell me what you think anyway.
If people are inclined to say that "the early bird catches the worm" then isn't it possible to argue that it is in fact "the early worm that gets eaten by the bird"

If you can think of a reply then please let me know. This is one of those times when I am looking for a decent retort to a wise-ass.

 

[Laurel]

BUT if we were to assume that birds are diurnal and worms are nocturnal, then wouldn't that (potentially) derail your hypothesis?

 

[Silverlily]

I agree, you'd think the worms would know about the early birds by now. Maybe the early birds only catch stupid worms.

You might try pointing out that talented birds can catch worms when ever they feel like.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I'm not much of a wise ass... rather more of a dumbass. Discussions of worms make me regress into latin grunts of biology lessons. Anyway, all I could think of with my broken brains...

"...and tapeworms think this is a bad thing because why?"

tapeworms are fascinating... um, shuttin up.

"Not if the worm works 3rd shift."

Yes STUPID!!!! somebody stop me!!!!!

"There is a reason for snooze alarms."

Well, what got me is that, as we speak, there is a dozen nightcrawlers languishing in my refridgerator. They are fated to impaled upon barbed eagle claw hooks until dead, then used to bait fish into biting these hooks.

It's 01:28 now and I completely forgot how to spell refridgerator, no matter how I spell it, it just doesn't look right. I'm guessing here.

Worms are cool.

I'm going to shut up now.

 

[Xander]

???????????????????????????????????????????

 

[GoMyr]

Touche, Kitten Eyes!

Thank you for making me chuckle.

GoMyr

 

[Slut_boy]

LOL @ Laurel. Yes, perhaps. But are we really at liberty to assume anything not stated in the facts. To be quite honest (eventhough this is not a biology question) I am not even convinced that all worms have eyes to know whether it is either day or else night. *laughs* But I don't know.

That's funny Kitten. But if a worm gets eaten then it may be difficult to learn a lesson of avoidance for next time - what 'next time' ?

 

[scylis]

but what if the early bird DOESN'T get the worm? what if it flies right into the pounce of a waiting feline? since the cat was most likely up nearly all of the night, would that make it "the nocturnal cat gets the early bird"? if so, then why get up early?

and let us not forget ferrets, weasles, and racoons, among other things, who also eat the worms...

and, finally, what about the early fisherman, who captures the worms and feeds them to the early fish?

 

[Silverlily]

But if a worm gets eaten then it may be difficult to learn a lesson of avoidance for next time - what 'next time' ?

Worm telepathy, the dying scream of the now breakfast worm is picked up by all of the other worms.

Hell, it's 2:30 am here.

 

[April]

See, this is why I don't get up early. I can't deal with the wholesale slaughter of innocent worms by those vicious, noisy birds!

 

[Slut_boy]

LMAO. That is absolutely brilliant KillerMuffin and Scylis. Now I can tell my class that there can indeed be a delicate balance of humour in philosophy.

 

[Slut_boy]

In about an hour from now I am giving a class and I intend asking this exact question to my students. The humour is good, but from a philosophical point of view, I am keen on interesting answers to test the hypothesis - like Laurel's answer was pretty refuting. When I get back then I'll let you know what the reply of the class is to this ridiculous question.

 

[Gil]

Early to bed, early to rise!
Makes a Worm...
Neither healthy nor wise!

 

[Myrrdin]

It may be the early bird that gets the worm, but its the second mouse that gets the cheese.

 

[Slut_boy]

Okay, here is what came from the class:

They reckoned that there is no such thing as an early worm because the indication is clear that the 'worm' is a constant in the equation. They say that the worm was always there to begin with, and this renders it impossible to say that the worm could ever be either early or late, for that matter. And for this reason 'time' (the earliness) is only applicable to the bird.

How does that sound. I think that I prefer some of this board's answers. Should I pose another silly (ridiculous) philosophical question, or have you had enough. Do I need to duck tomatoes (again)? *laughs*

Ouch!! Okay, who threw that?

 

[Merelan]

Hey, don't throw those tomatoes. Don't you know there are people starving in Bultrinia?

I want another question.

 

[Xander]

Another question for Merelan hehehehe

If a man "worm" is semi rerect. Is ist then a half stiffy??
Or half softy??

 

[Merelan]

Darling, I don't think you ever have that problem now, do you?

 

[Xander]

Merelan!!

WHO TOLD YOU???????

Nope I'm good in that department

 

[Isabella Thorne]

Early Birds and Worms do it better

ok .. are we referring to morning sex here???? ...
i.e. the bird being the girl (a Brit expression lol)
and of course the worm being the man ...

soooooooooooooo if the early bird eats the early worm ... .. he would be nuts to complain in my opinion ... and it would be only polite for the worm to then eat the bird in return ... lol .. no seriously ... ahhhh you gotta love those morning orgasms ..

 

[Slut_boy]

Another philosophy problem to solve

Okay, thanks for doing the problem. Here is another one for you. I have already given this one to my class - and they came up with a great reply. Let's see how you guys approach it.......

A very influential French philosopher, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) tried to develop a theory on determining certainty. In other words, he tried to find something in the world which he could confidently say existed - something about which there was no doubt at all. The more he thought about the issue, the more he realized that everything could be doubted, except for one thing - he said his own existence could be confirmed by the fact that he was thinking. Because the fact that he was thinking made his very existence a certainty. How could he think if he didn't exist? His words were "cognito ergo sum" or translated "I think therefore I am".

Now the question I posed to my class was as follows. Descartes thinks and because he thinks he says that he is. But what if we change "I think therefor I am" to a new possibility: "I think that I think therefor I think that I am". The question - will this now remove the only certainty that Descartes thought that he had? Are we back to square one again?

I look forward to hearing your answers.

[Edited by Slut_boy on 08-21-2000 at 07:02 AM]

 

[Merelan]

No your not back to square one. Using his "logic", you are still thinking, so therefore you am/are.
It wouldn't matter what you are thinking, just the fact you are is enough to prove your existance. Now, take this further. If I may?
Look around you today. If the fact we are thinking proves our existance, then what about those who rarely think, or think about "low" things. Those individuals who do not use their capacity, or only have a limited capacity. Does, using this theory, mean they are less here then others? Maybe that's how we die. Our thinking drops to a certain level and poof we are gone, just an empty husk is left behind.
I hope someone sees what I meant. I am not sure myself, been a long time since classes.
Slut boy, may I attend your classes? Please? Would love you as a teacher. Maybe you should have a special section here at Literotica. We would all wear white panties, I promise.
Well, maybe not Xander. He doesn't wear any.

 

[morgainefairy]

if you even think you are thinking, but you aren't sure, it's still thinking and existing, right? w/o being able to function, the brain is useless. and you do not exist. however, as long as the basics work, you still are existing, or are you?
maybe the extent to which you exist(meaning a little here and more somewhere else, or a lot here and a little non-existent) is fully dependent on how large your capability to think is.
ie. as long as you can think to wonder, you are doing just fine.

hope that made sense. i think i'll go brew some coffee. none for the kids, though. *ooohh, it's too, too early*]

 

[Silverlily]

I wish thought was a requirement for being. I know quite a few people who never think and are entirely too real. What would that be, "I never think therefore I irritate everyone"? It would be nice if everyone who failed to exercise their minds would cease to exist, unfortunately, I think (ha-ha) they multiply instead.

I agree with morgainefairy, this is a lot of being to do without coffee.

 

[Bonnie Wee Lassie]

I am so confused that my head is spinning. LOL