What is the problem with the following statements?
It is said that the following statements are wrong. Why these statements are wrong? What is the problem with the following statements?
People/things can be divided because they have divisibility.
People/things can be compared because they have comparability.
People/things can be connected because they have connectivity.
People/things can be disturbed because they have disturbability.
People/things can be reordered because they have reorderability.
People/things can be substituted because they have substitutability.
People/things can be satisfied because they have satisfiability.
i think the word "because" may be the problem. if people/things can be divided then they have divisibility by definition. so the word divisibility states that one can be divided but does not explain why it can be divided. it is like trying to define a word by using the same word.
Edit: the answer above me beat me to it and used more sophisticated language lol.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
omg, please please please please give us a BREAK with your divisibility crap. it’s doesn’t MEAN anything.
my blue car is blue b/c it has blueness
SO WHAT!?!?!?
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
They are self referential. People/things can be x-ed because they have (the property of) x-ability. They follow a simple formula that doesn’t say anything about what x is. If you can’t say anything meaningful about what the property really is, there is no point in pointing it out.
I like this one: People/things can be fooled because they have gullibility. What is the property of gullibility?
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
i think the word "because" may be the problem. if people/things can be divided then they have divisibility by definition. so the word divisibility states that one can be divided but does not explain why it can be divided. it is like trying to define a word by using the same word.
Edit: the answer above me beat me to it and used more sophisticated language lol.
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Things do not have, things are. Things having is a slang expression for short description. Those properties are concepts belonging to the conceivable, not all of the existential.
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
This is a very good question with a very simple answer. Just because someone or something HAS divisibility doesn’t mean they can be divided. To have divisibility means they have the ability to divide other things or people, but not necessarily that they themselves can be divided. Similarly, having comparability does not mean that a person or thing can be compared. Instead it means that person or thing can compare other things/people. The pattern continues the same way across all of the adjectives that end each sentence in relation to the people and things that are the subjects of the sentences.
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Like edetwi is suggesting, they are trivial to the point of being uninformative. They don’t really tell you anything. Saying people can be divided because they have divisibility is like saying I’m me because I’m myself. Yes it’s true, but so what?
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
They are not all wrong, but they are pointless.
As others have said, they are self-referential, undefinable, and have no applicable purpose or value. The terms are vague and ill-defined, if defined at all, and you never grow or expand the theory, you just post the same random lines and questions over and over again. It’s pointless.
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
um, right of the top of my head from looking at these statements it does not seem that they are wrong. It seems they would only be wrong if you state People/ things are______, which i have heard posed millions of times. the problem with People/ things are divided ( etc.) is that those same things can be divisible but not yet divided, which is the common answer for that question, but, as i said before, there seems nothing wrong with these statements
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Everything is wrong because everything is done wrongly.
References :
March 25th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist?
References :