Does the hunter go around the squirrel? Vote and then move on already. - Page 8

Stormieweather · 06-21-2012, 11:00 AM

Hmm, I missed the original argument.

In my opinion, the hunter has gone around the tree.

Not the squirrel.

The squirrel has ALSO gone around the tree.

But it doesn't mean one went around the other just because they both went around the same object.

If I'm walking around the perimeter of a museum and so are you, I cannot reasonably claim to have walked around YOU. I might not even see you during my trip. Unless you stop and I walk past your back, in which case I have now walked around you as well as the museum.

jimhelm · 06-21-2012, 11:57 AM

what if you walked past and I was facing you?

you're substituting the concept of behind for around.

If your path traced is entirely contained within mine, I HAVE gone around you. maybe not gotten behind you... but, yes.. around.

Stormieweather · 06-21-2012, 03:47 PM

Seems as though you are substituting my path for me.

jimhelm · 06-21-2012, 06:34 PM

for me go around perhaps. but then, if you take your path away, you can't go around anything.

footfootfoot · 06-21-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimhelm

yesterday, I did this with a co worker:

He was of the opinion that the hunter does not go around...

the floor in the show room is 12" tiles. I had him stay inside the outer perimeter of 4 of the tiles... a 2' square. i told him to stay facing me as I walked around him. once I had gone all the way around, I asked if I had gone around him.

he said no.

so, i gave up and called him a faggot.

yebbut I bet that nigger sold that shit out of some car

Ibby · 06-21-2012, 07:56 PM

Here's my take on it.

If you stood still in the center of my wide circle, i definitely went around you.
Then, it stands to reason, if you stood off-center, i still did.
Therefore, if you stood anywhere in the circle I made, I went around you.

I then posit that, if you milled about slowly and aimlessly, just sort of wandering more-or-less in-place, within my circle, I still did go around you.
Then, finally, my conclusion is, if you moved with purpose in a circular path, instead of aimlessly and more-or-less in place, as long as your circle was smaller than mine and entirely contained within the path I took, i walked around you.

That doesn't mean I was using you as the center point or the subject of my circle, but i still went around you.

Clodfobble · 06-21-2012, 09:42 PM

Oh fer chrissake. This again?

Look, all motion is relative. All of it. In the case of, say, Earth and Mars orbiting the sun, we prefer to think of the sun as being stationary, but you could just as easily create a legitimate frame of reference in which Mars stands still, such that the Earth and sun would fly around at erratic speeds and appear to actually encircle Mars.

Imagine that the squirrel does not go around the tree, but rather the tree and the entire Earth are spinning under the squirell's feet, like those dudes who roll logs on water*, or the circus clown who runs backwards on top of a big ball in order to roll it forward on the ground. In this 'squirrel is stationary' frame of reference, the hunter is a pawn to the Earth, and appears to move around the squirrel. But now imagine instead that the hunter is stuck in one place, moving his legs but it's like he's on a treadmill (yes, I said it)--a giant Earth-sized treadmill... and now, think hard to imagine it... in that frame of reference the squirrel is moving around the hunter.

*There are competitions, even! Behold:

Ibby · 06-22-2012, 01:11 AM

...well, sure, i guess I'm going way out on a limb and assuming our frame of reference is the one we use every day in speech to describe motion on Earth. I don't really think assuming that calling the Earth stationary and just dealing with the practical applications of relative movement of creatures fixed by gravity on a relatively "flat" plane moving, when not by their own actions, otherwise identically, is going against the spirit of the question. In fact, in constructing my argument, i used stormie's museum construction in my head... and then re-constructed it using a tree instead of a museum and came up with exactly the same explanation.

I mean, if he never saw the squirrel while it was behind the tree, maybe it was dead, or neither alive nor dead, or some other sort of cat-in-a-box theoretical argument. I think the question is not remotely about astrophysics or the implications of relative motion. it's face-value and in colloquial terms, and merely a question about the definition of the word "around". in this case, stormie disagrees with my definition because, if i understand her correctly, to her it's about intent. to me, the question of whether something went "around" something is no more complex than, did the circle/ellipse/shape of A's path completely contain the shape of B's path.

Rhianne · 06-22-2012, 04:36 AM

...and, of course, the Earth doesn't really go around the sun - they both orbit a common point.

infinite monkey · 06-22-2012, 09:02 AM

Voting is closed.

This is where we get to the moving on part.

Ibby · 06-22-2012, 11:11 AM

im, you spoilsport! STOP DISCUSSING THIS DONT WANNA HEAR IT LALALALA

BigV · 06-22-2012, 11:15 AM

come on, Ibram. we can't go around the squirrel without moving, now can we?

Clodfobble · 06-22-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

I mean, if he never saw the squirrel while it was behind the tree, maybe it was dead, or neither alive nor dead, or some other sort of cat-in-a-box theoretical argument.

Exactly. This is why it is a dumb argument. The only thing that ever matters is the practicality of the situation. The hunter will not be able to shoot the squirrel while it moves away from him, so he will starve. But if the hunter is installing 8-foot electrified fencing as he goes, he will have eventually trapped the squirrel within a circle, and can kill it at his leisure, and live another day.

Ibby · 06-22-2012, 11:37 AM

of course it's not a "practical" question - it's a semantic question, on what it means to "go around" something. If you don't find semantic discussions fun then you won't like the discussion, but that doesn't make it a "dumb argument". I happen to enjoy discussing semantics because I think that a HUGE percentage of disagreements happen because people just aren't talking about the same thing, or are using the same word to mean different things. thinking seriously about what we mean when we say things is important to me. that doesn't make me dumb for "arguing" about it, or make it a dumb thing to talk about.

infinite monkey · 06-22-2012, 11:41 AM

Fine, then. The hunter does not go around the squirrel and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, at best. Magic tricks again.

View Poll Results: Does the hunter go around the squirrel?
Yes. He goes around the squirrel.	16	61.54%
No. He does not go around the squirrel.	10	38.46%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

06-21-2012, 11:00 AM	#106
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	Hmm, I missed the original argument. In my opinion, the hunter has gone around the tree. Not the squirrel. The squirrel has ALSO gone around the tree. But it doesn't mean one went around the other just because they both went around the same object. If I'm walking around the perimeter of a museum and so are you, I cannot reasonably claim to have walked around YOU. I might not even see you during my trip. Unless you stop and I walk past your back, in which case I have now walked around you as well as the museum. __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

06-21-2012, 11:57 AM	#107
jimhelm a beautiful fool Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 39.939705 Posts: 4,504	what if you walked past and I was facing you? you're substituting the concept of behind for around. If your path traced is entirely contained within mine, I HAVE gone around you. maybe not gotten behind you... but, yes.. around. __________________ There's a Shadow just behind me. Shrouding every step I take. Making every promise empty, pointing every finger at me. _tool

06-21-2012, 03:47 PM	#108
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	Seems as though you are substituting my path for me. __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

06-21-2012, 06:34 PM	#109
jimhelm a beautiful fool Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 39.939705 Posts: 4,504	for me go around perhaps. but then, if you take your path away, you can't go around anything. __________________ There's a Shadow just behind me. Shrouding every step I take. Making every promise empty, pointing every finger at me. _tool

06-21-2012, 07:56 PM	#111
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Here's my take on it. If you stood still in the center of my wide circle, i definitely went around you. Then, it stands to reason, if you stood off-center, i still did. Therefore, if you stood anywhere in the circle I made, I went around you. I then posit that, if you milled about slowly and aimlessly, just sort of wandering more-or-less in-place, within my circle, I still did go around you. Then, finally, my conclusion is, if you moved with purpose in a circular path, instead of aimlessly and more-or-less in place, as long as your circle was smaller than mine and entirely contained within the path I took, i walked around you. That doesn't mean I was using you as the center point or the subject of my circle, but i still went around you. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

06-21-2012, 09:42 PM	#112
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Oh fer chrissake. This again? Look, all motion is relative. All of it. In the case of, say, Earth and Mars orbiting the sun, we prefer to think of the sun as being stationary, but you could just as easily create a legitimate frame of reference in which Mars stands still, such that the Earth and sun would fly around at erratic speeds and appear to actually encircle Mars. Imagine that the squirrel does not go around the tree, but rather the tree and the entire Earth are spinning under the squirell's feet, like those dudes who roll logs on water, or the circus clown who runs backwards on top of a big ball in order to roll it forward on the ground. In this 'squirrel is stationary' frame of reference, the hunter is a pawn to the Earth, and appears to move around the squirrel. But now imagine instead that the hunter is stuck in one place, moving his legs but it's like he's on a treadmill (yes, I said it)--a giant Earth-sized treadmill... and now, think hard to imagine it... in that frame of reference the squirrel is moving around the hunter. There are competitions, even! Behold: __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

06-22-2012, 01:11 AM	#113
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	...well, sure, i guess I'm going way out on a limb and assuming our frame of reference is the one we use every day in speech to describe motion on Earth. I don't really think assuming that calling the Earth stationary and just dealing with the practical applications of relative movement of creatures fixed by gravity on a relatively "flat" plane moving, when not by their own actions, otherwise identically, is going against the spirit of the question. In fact, in constructing my argument, i used stormie's museum construction in my head... and then re-constructed it using a tree instead of a museum and came up with exactly the same explanation. I mean, if he never saw the squirrel while it was behind the tree, maybe it was dead, or neither alive nor dead, or some other sort of cat-in-a-box theoretical argument. I think the question is not remotely about astrophysics or the implications of relative motion. it's face-value and in colloquial terms, and merely a question about the definition of the word "around". in this case, stormie disagrees with my definition because, if i understand her correctly, to her it's about intent. to me, the question of whether something went "around" something is no more complex than, did the circle/ellipse/shape of A's path completely contain the shape of B's path. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

06-22-2012, 04:36 AM	#114
Rhianne Nearly done. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Teetering on the edge. Posts: 1,134	...and, of course, the Earth doesn't really go around the sun - they both orbit a common point.

06-22-2012, 09:02 AM	#115
infinite monkey Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 13,002	Voting is closed. This is where we get to the moving on part.

06-22-2012, 11:11 AM	#116
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	im, you spoilsport! STOP DISCUSSING THIS DONT WANNA HEAR IT LALALALA __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

06-22-2012, 11:15 AM	#117
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	come on, Ibram. we can't go around the squirrel without moving, now can we? __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

06-22-2012, 11:37 AM	#119
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	of course it's not a "practical" question - it's a semantic question, on what it means to "go around" something. If you don't find semantic discussions fun then you won't like the discussion, but that doesn't make it a "dumb argument". I happen to enjoy discussing semantics because I think that a HUGE percentage of disagreements happen because people just aren't talking about the same thing, or are using the same word to mean different things. thinking seriously about what we mean when we say things is important to me. that doesn't make me dumb for "arguing" about it, or make it a dumb thing to talk about. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

06-22-2012, 11:41 AM	#120
infinite monkey Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 13,002	Fine, then. The hunter does not go around the squirrel and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, at best. Magic tricks again.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)