• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Examples of Stupid Idioms

A

AnathemicOne

Banned
MDSVeritas said:
I honestly did not expect this to be a thing I would do today, but I will assist with trying to argue the point of a cake idiom.

The idiom, as seems to be generally understood by everyone here, is simply referring to being unable to hold two mutually exclusive states at once.

Aside some minor wording quibbles I think it does it pretty well as the two states:

"I have a cake before me."

and

"I have eaten this cake and no longer have it before me"

Cannot exist at one time. Sure, we can get into unnecessarily specific questions about the idiom, such as technically having a part of the cake while you eat it, but honestly what's the point? The saying is simply using two naturally exclusive states: pre- and post-eating, and saying that you cannot have those two states exist at the same time.
Click to expand...

I'll do you one better. Like I've stated earlier the common phrase of "you are having X" in terms of eating, equalizes "having" and "eating" as the same definition.

So "someone eating chicken" equates to "someone having chicken."

"Someone eating cake" equates to "someone having cake."

Going back to the idiom, someone "having their cake and eating it too" is a redundancy. And with the above examples in no way serves as a legitimate form of a fallacious example.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
I think more than I hate these sorts of folksy idioms, I hate motivational posters more. Some of them are just totally wrong or can easily be misapplied.

c3WVACm.png
Click to expand...

Well ok now I'm in the middle of fucking outer space running out of air, water and resources, instead of usefully planted on the moon's surface where I can study things and get back home.

GvijVhe.png
Click to expand...

Come on, there are a ton of things you can "think" you can do and be utterly wrong about. And just thinking you can't do something doesn't mean you aren't actively trying and might end up being wrong about your earlier assessment.

Also conflicts with the "shoot for the moon" quote above, since if you think you can make it, apparently you'll never miss.

9ho7ILL.png
Click to expand...

"Never?" Sometimes knowing when to quit is the most important part of winning. Picking your battles. And "quitters never win?" It's not possible to quit at some things and get labeled a quitter, and then go on to win at some things later?

bnx9n9m.png
Click to expand...

Bullshit, jury rigging is an incredibly important skill in life. But I guess if it works then that must mean you actually "did it right," so this is a useless phrase. If you don't have to redo something, then apparently you did it right, but you have no way of knowing until the thing fails.

MvgKUoW.png
Click to expand...

Sometimes a thorough assessment of the situation leads you to the conclusion that it it would be ideal not to try, and waste all that time and energy on something fruitless, and you feel relieved later that you didn't. All the phrases about how you need to try are basically the same as YOLO. Plus they're all so vague that they never question whether the thing being "tried" is moral, ethical, legal etc. You could put a picture of one of history's monsters next to any quote about trying.
 
V

VegiHam

Member
AnathemicOne said:
I'll do you one better. Like I've stated earlier the common phrase of "you are having X" in terms of eating, equalizes "having" and "eating" as the same definition.

So "someone eating chicken" equates to "someone having chicken."

"Someone eating cake" equates to "someone having cake."

Going back to the idiom, someone "having their cake and eating it too" is a redundancy. And with the above examples in no way serves as a legitimate form of a fallacious example.
Click to expand...

No man it's not have like that. It's have like "hey Anath bro do you have any beers". And you'd have to say like "nah sorry Vegi I drank all the beers and don't have them"

Like I'm pretty sure the idiom predates the use of have to mean that anyway.
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
VegiHam said:
No man it's not have like that. It's have like "hey Anath bro do you have any beers". And you'd have to say like "nah sorry Vegi I drank all the beers and don't have them"

Like I'm pretty sure the idiom predates the use of have to mean that anyway.
Click to expand...

I recognize that, believe me I get what the idiom means, I disagree with what it means now though in its contemporary use. Having and eating are equivalent, using the idiom to state a redundancy is stupid. Hence the idiom is stupid. Stupid idiom.

Edit: At the same time, in your example "having a beer" equates to "drinking a beer", in order to drink the beer you had to have it in the first place.
 
S

Switch Back 9

a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
AnathemicOne said:
I'll do you one better. Like I've stated earlier the common phrase of "you are having X" in terms of eating, equalizes "having" and "eating" as the same definition.

So "someone eating chicken" equates to "someone having chicken."

"Someone eating cake" equates to "someone having cake."

Going back to the idiom, someone "having their cake and eating it too" is a redundancy. And with the above examples in no way serves as a legitimate form of a fallacious example.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I hate GAF, sometimes I love it. This is an example of the latter.
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Earthbound64 said:
Multiple definitions of a word, how do they work?

Why don't you just have a seat?
Click to expand...

Fuck that, if I'm going to have cake then obviously I'm going to eat it. Why wouldn't I? I mean yeah if I were full and didn't want the cake I wouldn't eat it. But I did want it and had it, then I would eat it.
 
E

elrechazado

Banned
AnathemicOne said:
I recognize that, believe me I get what the idiom means, I disagree with what it means now though in its contemporary use. Having and eating are equivalent, using the idiom to state a redundancy is stupid. Hence the idiom is stupid. Stupid idiom.

Edit: At the same time, in your example "having a beer" equates to "drinking a beer", in order to drink the beer you had to have it in the first place.
Click to expand...
It's really not the idiom that's stupid here
 
P

Plum

Member
AnathemicOne said:
I'll do you one better. Like I've stated earlier the common phrase of "you are having X" in terms of eating, equalizes "having" and "eating" as the same definition.

So "someone eating chicken" equates to "someone having chicken."

"Someone eating cake" equates to "someone having cake."

Going back to the idiom, someone "having their cake and eating it too" is a redundancy. And with the above examples in no way serves as a legitimate form of a fallacious example.
Click to expand...

Why are you putting things into the past tense? The phrase isn't "You can't eating your cake and having it too," it's "you can't have your cake and eat it too." I don't know why you're so focused on the former. "Have" and "Having" are two highly different words. Without modifying words (such as "I shall have" or "I have had") to "have" something is generally recognised as to "own" something.

AnathemicOne said:
Edit: At the same time, in your example "having a beer" equates to "drinking a beer", in order to drink the beer you had to have it in the first place.
Click to expand...

You did it again!
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Earthbound64 said:
"If I'm going to have cake then obviously I'm going to eat it."
So by your own statement the terms aren't equivalent.
Click to expand...

But they are. Having and eating can happen at the same time in both definition and action. When you put the cake in your mouth do you not have it in your possession?
 
V

VegiHam

Member
AnathemicOne said:
I recognize that, believe me I get what the idiom means, I disagree with what it means now though in its contemporary use. Having and eating are equivalent, using the idiom to state a redundancy is stupid. Hence the idiom is stupid. Stupid idiom.

Edit: At the same time, in your example "having a beer" equates to "drinking a beer", in order to drink the beer you had to have it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Mate trust me, if I'm asking if you have a beer I mean like is there one in your fridge I can take. I don't care if you had (meaning drank) it or if you never had (meaning posessed) it.

But I will then have (drink) it because it'd be weird to take possession of your beer and leave. Point being inference from context.

Your reading with the redundancy just straight up isn't what the people using the idiom mean or what most people understand it to be.
 
E

Earthbound64

Banned
AnathemicOne said:
But they are. Having and eating can happen
Click to expand...

"They're equivalent. They can happen at the same time."
If they "can" it also means that it's possible for them to not - which means that they're not equivalent.

The possibility that things can happen at the same time doesn't mean they're equivalent.
There's an obvious language issue at play here.
 
C

Chronoja

Member
Figgles said:
This is just spiritual mumbo jumbo. People think there is a higher purpose to the shit they have to put up with, so they lie to themselves.
Click to expand...

People have effectively reversed the usage of the phrase, they use it to give future context to current events when it should refer to past events giving context to current events, which actually makes sense.

The reason is not some yet to be known revelation, it's easier to rephrase it, "everything that has happened, has occurred because of reasons". Consider it like the Butterfly Effect, Event A impacts Event B, impacts Event C etc, a lineage of reasons why the next event occurs.

Take for example a natural disaster like flooding, normally people might ask why does this happen, "everything happens for a reason", we'll never be able to know said "divine", mystical reason, or how the phrase actually makes sense, "everything happens for a reason is likely because people are building houses on flood plains susceptible to flooding, there is no mystery.
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Plum said:
Why are you putting things into the past tense? The phrase isn't "You can't eating your cake and having it too," it's "you can't have your cake and eat it too." I don't know why you're so focused on the former. "Have" and "Having" are two highly different words. Without modifying words (such as "I shall have" or "I have had") to "have" something is generally recognised as to "own" something.



You did it again!
Click to expand...

The idiom puts "have" and "eat" in the past tense in the way the sentence is constructed. I'm arguing that both states can exist at the same time and its logical that they do so. You can't not have cake and eat it because you don't have cake to eat.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
I think regardless of the semantics, the phrase "have your cake and eat it too" just sounds really stupid. Like it sounds sort of backwards. Maybe a better way to put it would be "you can't eat a cake and still have it afterward?"

It sounds dumb to me in the way that "a stitch in time saves nine" sounds dumb. When I first heard that I wasn't thinking of the sewing context and couldn't figure it out at all. Like, a "stitch in time," what is that some sci-fi shit?! And it reads like a newspaper headline, like nine people were rescued due to this stitch in time.
 
F

Farmboy

Member
"You have your whole life ahead of you." British comedian Daniel Kitson once correctly observed that this is one idiom that is actually never true, with the possible exception of bellowing it up a pregnant woman's birth canal.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
Chronoja said:
People have effectively reversed the usage of the phrase, they use it to give future context to current events when it should refer to past events giving context to current events, which actually makes sense.

The reason is not some yet to be known revelation, it's easier to rephrase it, "everything that has happened, has occurred because of reasons". Consider it like the Butterfly Effect, Event A impacts Event B, impacts Event C etc, a lineage of reasons why the next event occurs.

Take for example a natural disaster like flooding, normally people might ask why does this happen, "everything happens for a reason", we'll never be able to know said "divine", mystical reason, or how the phrase actually makes sense, "everything happens for a reason is likely because people are building houses on flood plains susceptible to flooding, there is no mystery.
Click to expand...

I don't think the phrase was ever commonly used in the way you're trying to say it was. It's always been about some negative current event happening for some as-yet unknown positive event later.
 
C

Chronoja

Member
UncleSporky said:
I don't think the phrase was ever commonly used in the way you're trying to say it was. It's always been about some negative current event happening for some as-yet unknown positive event later.
Click to expand...

A bit of misphrasing, I'm not really suggesting that it was used this way, I'm agreeing how it's used makes no sense because it's pretty much backwards in its usage. It would make more sense if people used it the other way though.
 
M

mavo

Banned
In spanish we say "dont look for 3 feet on the cat" is supposed to mean like "dont reinvent the wheel" but like 3 feet, cat? I dont get it at all.

Also ours "speak of the devil and he shall appear" is "speaking of the king of rome", Rome wasnt a monarchy.
 
P

Plum

Member
AnathemicOne said:
The idiom puts "have" and "eat" in the past tense in the way the sentence is constructed. I'm arguing that both states can exist at the same time and its logical that they do so. You can't not have cake and eat it because you don't have cake to eat.
Click to expand...

What makes you think they're in the past tense? Neither "have" nor "eat" are in the past tense, there's no indication to imply they are. Even if you're using the term to refer to something in the past, "have" doesn't make sense as being equivalent to "eat." "Have had" or "Have eaten" would make your argument true, but "have" on its own implies the literal meaning of the term.

That I just realised that we both fucked up and put "having" and "eating" in the past tense when they're present. Your argument makes even less sense with that considered.
 
U

UtterlyPerplexed

Member
I'm sure it's been brought up already, but it warrants another shout out. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Fuck that.

I mean, it's not like verbal abuse and its well-documented real effects on people ranging from insecurity to depression as found by decades of psychological studies is real or anything. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to continually and relentlessly body shame this girl here. I don't know what she's so fussed about. They're only words.
 
R

RoyaleDuke

Banned
"it will always get better"

No, no, it won't. Current timeline is proof enough.


"It could always be worse"

Yeah lotta fucking help that is, why not just whataboutism ALL my problems.

Also the general idea that age = intellect or wisdom or any kind of actual intelligence.
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Plum said:
What makes you think they're in the past tense? Neither "have" nor "eat" are in the past tense, there's no indication to imply they are. Even if you're using the term to refer to something in the past, "have" doesn't make sense as being equivalent to "eat." "Have had" or "Have eaten" would make your argument true, but "have" on its own implies the literal meaning of the term.

That I just realised that we both fucked up and put "having" and "eating" in the past tense when they're present. Your argument makes even less sense with that considered.
Click to expand...

English is fucked up. But my point still stands, how can you eat cake without having it?
 
M

M.Bluth

Member
I came into the thread with an idiom in mind, but I forgot it because the extent of the OP's inability to understand the dozens of explanations for having the cake and eating it has simply filled me with overwhelming rage.

Sweet, fucking Christ!
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
M.Bluth said:
I came into the thread with an idiom in mind, but I forgot it because the extent of the OP's inability to understand the dozens of explanations for having the cake and eating it has simply filled me with overwhelming rage.

Sweet, fucking Christ!
Click to expand...

How can one eat the cake without having it?! "You can't eat the cake and have it too". Yes you can!
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
RoyaleDuke said:
"it will always get better"

No, no, it won't. Current timeline is proof enough.


"It could always be worse"

Yeah lotta fucking help that is, why not just whataboutism ALL my problems.

Also the general idea that age = intellect or wisdom or any kind of actual intelligence.
Click to expand...

It won't always get better, but I am a strong proponent of "it could always be worse." It's one of the most important aspects of being happy with your life. There is a time and a place for using the phrase, I mean you don't want someone telling you that after losing a job or a home, "at least you're not dead," but at the same time it's why I'm happy having a cruddy little job that doesn't pay enough...it could be much worse. I'm grateful every day I don't work retail or fast food industry. I've heard so many horror stories from other people online for various aspects of their lives that I never had to suffer through. That sort of thing.

And yeah with the age = wisdom thing...sometimes people like to turn it on its head too and say "oh a child can be so wise," nah man most kids are pretty dumb. If you interpreted something they said as being smart it's because you ran it through your adult lens and probably interpreted it as more than what was.
 
P

Plum

Member
RoyaleDuke said:
Also the general idea that age = intellect or wisdom or any kind of actual intelligence.
Click to expand...

Ah, this reminds me:

"youth is wasted on the young."

Always comes off as condescending if it's not self-referential.

AnathemicOne said:
English is fucked up. But my point still stands, how can you eat cake without having it?
Click to expand...

You can't have an entire cake and eat an entire cake at the same time. Whether that be the past, present, or future, that phrase is not referring to a series of events, it's referring to two events happening simultaneously.

giphy.gif
 
A

AnathemicOne

Banned
Earthbound64 said:
But yet you can have cake without eating it.
Shocking, I know.
Click to expand...

So both states are true, why is one state being hailed as a common fallacy example for argument?

Plum said:
You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. Whether that be the past, present, or future, that phrase is not referring to a series of events, it's referring to two events happening simultaneously.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

But they can happen at the same time, it is required. You have to have the cake in order to eat it. If the cake is in your mouth you are having the cake and eating it, at the same time.
 
M

Manu

Member
mavo said:
In spanish we say "dont look for 3 feet on the cat" is supposed to mean like "dont reinvent the wheel" but like 3 feet, cat? I dont get it at all.

Also ours "speak of the devil and he shall appear" is "speaking of the king of rome", Rome wasnt a monarchy.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the phrase is "no buscarle la quinta pata al gato." So, fifth leg, not third.
 
M

M.Bluth

Member
AnathemicOne said:
How can one eat the cake without having it?!
Click to expand...

Dude. It doesn't mean you never had the fucking cake. It's describing the state of owning a whole cake (thus "have the buggered cake") while simultaneously having eaten the fucking cake.
How are you not getting it by this point?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Weird questions about fictional characters that you've thought about...
Community
16
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Last night I had to put my cat to sleep
9
587
Blade2.0 replied
Hey Youtube, just because I watched one video about [insert topic] doesn't mean you have to flood my home feed with it
Opinion
19
1K
newtypepilot replied
  • Locked
Coping with body dismorphic "disorder"
24
1K
EviLore replied
My family has owned a lot of pet's. I want to tell you about them
25
1K
Badlucktroll replied
Top Bottom