Support NeoGAF

[More_Badass]

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.

You would like this thread (unless you've seen it already)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1399290

 

[AntChum]

"You can't eat your cake and still be in possession of aforementioned cake 24 hours later."

 

[MercuryLS3]

Slow and steady wins the race

Fuck that. Balls to the wall all day

Yeah, those slow and steady people should get out of my fucking way.

 

[Earthbound64]

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

Because the word "have" isn't being used in the way that you are repeatedly insisting that it is.

 

[UncleSporky]

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.

The phrase is not "you can't have a cake and eat it." The phrase is "you can't have your cake and eat it too."

You can't be in the state of both having an intact and beautiful cake, and also in the state of eating it.

If the cake is partly in your mouth then it is no longer the original "cake" it was. Now what you have is a "partially-eaten cake."

 

[PSYGN]

It's a doggy dog world.

 

[Travo]

“Raining cats and dogs” goes way back. The story I’ve read is that back in the days, when people had houses with straw roofs, cats and dogs would find a way up there and make a nice cozy bed. When it starts to rain , the roof would become slippery and the animals would slide off. If you were inside, it would appear like it was raining cats and dogs.

 

[UCBooties]

But then why is it used in arguments? If you have something you're going to logically use it. Yet people keep using the term likes it's a bad thing. If I have food in my possession I'm gonna eat it, what's the purpose of the idiom?

Is this you?

 

[AnathemicOne]

The phrase is not "you can't have a cake and eat it." The phrase is "you can't have your cake and eat it too."

You can't be in the state of both having an intact and beautiful cake, and also in the state of eating it.

If the cake is partly in your mouth then it is no longer the original "cake" it was. Now what you have is a "partially-eaten cake."

"Too" doesn't imply future tense, it means an addition. Examples are "I have a lego brick and I have a lego man too" or "I have cake and I have some some chicken too". These don't mean "I have a lego brick, but now I have a lego man" or "I have a cake but now I have chicken." "Too" doesn't imply future tense or absence of another.

Since "eat" and "have" are equivalent then they can exist at the same time. "Too" is just being redundant.

 

[UncleSporky]

You would like this thread (unless you've seen it already)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1399290

Yes, I love that thread and that bot!

 

[Maligna]

When you disagree with someone or think they are weird but want to keep the peace.

"It takes all kinds."

No. There just ARE all kinds.

 

[mavo]

...
You might want to look back a bit further.

It was for a couple hundred years. They had elected kings who served life terms.

Oh now i look like an idiot lol.

 

[UncleSporky]

"Too" doesn't imply future tense, it means an addition. Examples are "I have a lego brick and I have a lego man too" or "I have cake and I have some some chicken too". These don't mean "I have a lego brick, but not I have a lego man" or "I have a cake but now I have chicken." "Too" doesn't imply future tense or absence of another.

Since "eat" and "have" are equivalent then they can exist at the same time. "Too" is just being redundant.

Right, I wasn't using it in a future tense way. I was using it as an addition. You can't have a fully intact cake and be eating it too, because when you are eating it, it's no longer fully intact.

It's like the story of the man who slowly replaced and rebuilt every part of his aging boat over time. Can it be said that he has the same boat, if every piece was replaced? Can you be said to "have a cake" if the cake you were referring to is now missing some bites out of it? It's not the same cake. You can't have that cake you started with and be eating it as well.

 

[Plum]

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.

At the same time:

You can have* 1/2 of a cake and eat 1/2 of a cake.

You can have* 1/4 of a cake and eat 3/4 of a cake.

You can't have* 1 cake and eat 1 cake.

Spoiler

*Have =/= eat

 

[Aizo]

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice teach a man to fool for life.

The more I read it, the more I laugh. This is really good.

 

[HarryKS]

"No pain, no gain."

Pain isn't actually necessary to gain things.

That's not stupid.

Not stupid at all...

 

[AnathemicOne]

Right, I wasn't using it in a future tense way. I was using it as an addition. You can't have a fully intact cake and be eating it too, because when you are eating it, it's no longer fully intact.

At the same time:

You can have* 1/2 of a cake and eat 1/2 of a cake.

You can have* 1/4 of a cake and eat 3/4 of a cake.

You can't have* 1 cake and eat 1 cake.

Spoiler

*Have =/= eat

Yes you can. When you say you are "having X" it can mean you are "consuming X." Is me saying "I'm having chicken" wrong? If not, then me saying "I'm going to have and eat chicken" is not wrong either.

 

[Tubobutts]

If I ask you if you have any cake and you ate all of the cake, you shouldn't answer me by saying you have cake.

 

[Prez]

The saying makes absolute sense, but is easier to understand when you reverse it:

You can't eat your cake, and have it too

As explained already, it's expressing that once you eat it, it's gone and you don't continue to have it. It's not exactly rocket surgery.

You can't perform surgery on a rocket, silly.

 

[Travo]

So many misunderstood phrases...”Diamond Dozen”? 🤔

 

[Dirtyshubb]

"you've made your bed, now lie in it"

Makes no sense, should be "you've laid in your bed, now make it"

The whole point is about cleaning up after your actions, not you've fixed everything, now make it messy again.

 

[Fulminator]

Seeing as this is 4 pages deep, this has already been discussed, but...

Sexist but it makes more sense. "Having your cake and eating it too" is a logical statement, so having it as an example of fallacy is stupid.

Lmao dude you are literally the only person who doesn't understand this

You can have your cake and eat it

You can't have your cake and eat it TOO

 

[UncleSporky]

The more I read it, the more I laugh. This is really good.

I always liked this one

 

[Earthbound64]

Oh now i look like an idiot lol.

Hey, at least you learned from it.

 

[Manu]

I refuse to believe OP is really this dense.

 

[Plum]

Yes you can. When you say you are "having X" it can mean you are "consuming X." Is me saying "I'm having chicken" wrong? If not, then me saying "I'mgoing to have and eat chicken" is not wrong either.

Feels like we're going in circles here:

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.

 

[UCBooties]

What I can't stand is not actually the idiom itself but the particular way it gets mangled:

"toe the line" makes sense. You are lining up exactly with other people and either showing solidarity or deference to an authority. This makes sense and is the intended usage.

"tow the line" makes no sense. I get irrationally angry every time I see someone use this. Like what the fuck do you even think you are saying?

 

[Omadahl]

"No pain, no gain."

Pain isn't actually necessary to gain things.

I mean... when I'm mugging people, their pain is necessary, but that's probably not how it's meant to be portrayed.

 

[Palette Swap]

So, that cake eating, is it like piracy, which is itself like stealing a car?
Does this mean you can’t eat a car you’ve downloaded illegally?

 

[UncleSporky]

Yes you can. When you say you are "having X" it can mean you are "consuming X." Is me saying "I'm having chicken" wrong? If not, then me saying "I'm going to have and eat chicken" is not wrong either.

This is changing the meaning of what you're discussing though.

Either the discussion is about possessing and eating simultaneously, or it's about eating and another word for eating. You can't have your cake and eat it too, dude.

 

[yepyepyep]

"you've made your bed, now lie in it"

Makes no sense, should be "you've laid in your bed, now make it"

The whole point is about cleaning up after your actions, not you've fixed everything, now make it messy again.

I think the meaning means accept the consequences for your actions rather than fix your mistakes.

 

[Earthbound64]

Yes you can. When you say you are "having X" it can mean you are "consuming X." Is me saying "I'm having chicken" wrong? If not, then me saying "I'm going to have and eat chicken" is not wrong either.

--->

Because the word "have" isn't being used in the way that you are repeatedly insisting that it is.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Seeing as this is 4 pages deep, this has already been discussed, but...


Lmao dude you are literally the only person who doesn't understand this

You can have your cake and eat it

You can't have your cake and eat it TOO

Yes you can. Too just means an addition, to break it down in mathematics, lets equate "eat" as 1 and "have" as 2

"Eat and have the cake": 1+2
"Eat and have the cake too": 1+2+

That's it, it's just a '+', it doesn't mean you are negating the previous variable.

This is changing the meaning of what you're discussing though.

Either the discussion is about possessing and eating simultaneously, or it's about eating and another word for eating. You can't have your cake and eat it too, dude.

But I can, if I'm eating the cake, then I'm having the cake, at the same time.

 

[stryker1138]

It is what it is.

My office is infested with this and it makes me want to jump out the goddamn window.

 

[tonysidaway]

One man has.

Incidentally I just recently realised that Pam Ferris who played the monstrous Trunchbull in that film (the teacher in the clip above) also played Ma Larkin, Miriam in Children of Men, Sister Evangelina in Call the Midwife, and Harry Potter's terrifying Aunt Marge. That's quite a range.

 

[UCBooties]

This is changing the meaning of what you're discussing though.

Either the discussion is about possessing and eating simultaneously, or it's about eating and another word for eating. You can't have your cake and eat it too, dude.

 

[M.Bluth]

"you've made your bed, now lie in it"

Makes no sense, should be "you've laid in your bed, now make it"

The whole point is about cleaning up after your actions, not you've fixed everything, now make it messy again.

No, the whole point is that you screwed yourself over, now you gotta live with it.

 

[God Dayumm]

Yes you can. Too just means an addition, to break it down in mathematics, lets equate "eat" as 1 and "have" as 2

"Eat and have the cake": 1+2
"Eat and have the cake too": 1+2+

That's it, it's just a '+', it doesn't mean you are negating the previous variable.

I think the idiom got fucked up during transition from some ancient form of English or something. It would be less ambiguous if it said: "Eating your cake and keeping it too"

 

[UncleSporky]

What I can't stand is not actually the idiom itself but the particular way it gets mangled:

"toe the line" makes sense. You are lining up exactly with other people and either showing solidarity or deference to an authority. This makes sense and is the intended usage.

"tow the line" makes no sense. I get irrationally angry every time I see someone use this. Like what the fuck do you even think you are saying?

This is a wrong interpretation. It has nothing to do with lining up or standing in line. To toe the line means there's a clear line drawn and you are butting right up against it, pushing the limit of where you can't go. Picture a line drawn on the ground and someone says you can't go past it, but you put your toe on it anyway, like "haha, I'm not crossing it though!"

It's waving your hands all around someone and going "oh is this bothering you? I'm not touching you though!"

 

[Dirtyshubb]

I think the meaning means accept the consequences for your actions rather than fix your mistakes.

But it still doesn't make sense. Making your bed doesn't mean you have to immediately sleep in it.

Accepting the consequences of making your bed isn't "I now have to sleep in it".

I have never once heard it in any other example that wouldn't work better reversed instead of the usual way people use it.

No, the whole point is that you screwed yourself over, now you gotta live with it.

How is making your bed screwing up? It's fixing the mess you made, how the saying is used by everyone I have ever seen use it.

 

[Earthbound64]

I think the idiom got fucked up during transition from some ancient form of English or something.

No, it's perfectly clear to everyone except the OP.

They're going to get a tag out of this.

But it still doesn't make sense. Making your bed doesn't mean you have to immediately sleep in it.

Oh great, another one...

 

[Plum]

But I can, if I'm eating the cake, then I'm having the cake, at the same time.

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.

But it still doesn't make sense. Making your bed doesn't mean you have to immediately sleep in it.

Accepting the consequences of making your bed isn't "I now have to sleep in it".

I have never once heard it in any other example that wouldn't work better reversed instead of the usual way people use it.

That's literally what it's saying though. "You've made your bed, now you have to sleep in it." The idiom is just removing the "you have to" because those three words aren't really needed.

 

[AnathemicOne]

No, it's perfectly clear to everyone except the OP.

They're going to get a tag out of this.

How so, you keep saying there's a language issue, help me understand? Are "eat" and "have" not synonymous?

 

[UtterlyPerplexed]

What I can't stand is not actually the idiom itself but the particular way it gets mangled:

"toe the line" makes sense. You are lining up exactly with other people and either showing solidarity or deference to an authority. This makes sense and is the intended usage.

"tow the line" makes no sense. I get irrationally angry every time I see someone use this. Like what the fuck do you even think you are saying?

Similarly, I see and hear "hold down the fort" and I start asking questions (but mainly because David Mitchell did it and so must I.)

Why are we holding down the fort? Is our fort some kind of tent and we're in the middle of a typhoon? Has the fort been magically deprived of its density and mass and is about to float away at any moment?

 

[UCBooties]

This is a wrong interpretation. It has nothing to do with lining up or standing in line. To toe the line means there's a clear line drawn and you are butting right up against it, pushing the limit of where you can't go. Picture a line drawn on the ground and someone says you can't go past it, but you put your toe on it anyway, like "haha, I'm not crossing it though!"

It's waving your hands all around someone and going "oh is this bothering you? I'm not touching you though!"

No, the most common usage is "to toe the party line," It is absolutely about obedience. That's why Republicans voting in lock step are said to be "toeing the line."

 

[Earthbound64]

How so, you keep saying there's a language issue, help me understand? Are "eat" and "have" not synonymous?

Correct, they are not in the way this saying is using them.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Correct, they are not.

How so, do these example comparisons not make sense to you?

"I will eat the cake" = "I will have the cake"
"I had the cake" = "I ate the cake"
"I am having cake" = "I am eating cake"

The way I'm viewing "have your cake and eat it to" is "eat your cake and eat it too", its redundant.

 

[Earthbound64]

How so, do these example comparisons not make sense to you?

"I will eat the cake" = "I will have the cake"
"I had the cake" = "I ate the cake"
"I am having cake" = "I am eating cake"

Those are.
However, "have" can be used other ways too.

"I have a blowtorch" = "I am eating a blowtorch"?

The way I'm viewing "have your cake and eat it to" is "eat your cake and eat it too", its redundant.

And you're viewing it wrong.

 

[UCBooties]

How so, do these example comparisons not make sense to you?

"I will eat the cake" = "I will have the cake"
"I had the cake" = "I ate the cake"
"I am having cake" = "I am eating cake"

Yes, but have has a broader usage. So it the following is also correct:

"I have a cake" = "I possess a cake"

So, once again, if you eat your cake, you no longer possess that cake.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Those are.
However, "have" can be used other ways too.

"I have a blowtorch" = "I am eating a blowtorch"?

But we are talking in the context of food not tools. Replace cake with any type of food/drink and the meaning will remain the same i.e. consumption.

Yes, but have has a broader usage. So it the following is also correct:

"I have a cake" = "I possess a cake"

So, once again, if you eat your cake, you no longer possess that cake.

But you can, in the context of food/drink and consumption, have = eat, am I wrong in this? If so, list me an example.