If you kill a fly with a mallet what and where would happen?
What would happen is that a fly would have gotten killed with a mallet. Where it would happen would depend on where the fly was when you killed it.
That being said, you’re thread is retarded. It doesn’t express a thesis or a hypothesis, and it doesn’t make an argument or even lean toward doing so.
Why on Earth would you post this in the philosophy forum?
Incorrect as usual Smears. He is presenting a moral conundrum, and in doing so is seeking circumstantial support for further questioning. It is a investigative technique in Ethics. You can strip it far further than this, such as saying “Where is God”, or “How do you do that?”.
Secondly, English isn’t his primary language, so he isn’t aware America has stupid on your level. You probably confused the poor guy for doing what is right, thinking suddenly the rules of the world turned upside down. He doesn’t know your somebody lacking credibility, easily dismissed yet. As far as he knows, your a highly knowledgeable person. This is a scary thought indeed! Consider this when lecturing others.
I would kill a fly with a mallet on the International Space Station, using somebody else’s mallet.
When you see a sentence start with a would or a why, it already applies to the rules of minimal formal philosophical questioning. What almost always does, questions in general do as well.
The remains of the fly would begin to decompose. Beyond that, it is impossible to say, due to a lack of information.
Oh… fly would die on the mallet (what), when (when) you strike it.
He he he.
What if the mallet was impregnated with insecticide and the fly died as a result of landing on it and ingesting the poison? If this were the case, the time of death could have occurred within a considerable time range, depending on the strength of the toxic substance. It is impossible to say where the fly would be at the point of death.
That isn’t death by mallet, but death by insecticide. You can bring the fly to a vet for autopsy, asking for a probable cause if death… if not a pancake, unlikely to rule death by mallet.
The original question was about killing a fly “with” a mallet, not “by” a mallet. As the mallet was instrumental in bringing about the death of my fly, I think it is legitimate to say that the fly was killed with a mallet.
In that case, by virtue of the Butterfly Effect, there is a Mallet somewhere out there that started a war, present or future, and every mallet someday will be responsible at some tipping point in the future for killing every fly in said future, through casual determinism.
Think this is the bottom most stinky level of Dasein arguments. We can’t presume death by mallet as a supporting element to the death, but a direct and immediate element directly resulting from it’s inherent tributes.
For a mallet to kill, it must by it’s “malletness” that kills, and not the butterfly effect of remote or near causes, for it to be meaningful linguistically and legislatively, so we may communicate the specificality if the lethality. You would warn the public to beware of mallets due to a poisoning death, but rather the poison on a particular mallet, or that all mallets of thus type carry poison. Don’t want people fearing inanimate mallets thinking they will just leap up and smack them to death. Or maybe I do as a joke, but wouldn’t be right to do it, and it would result in a boy who cried wolf scenario. We have to preserve believability in language… it is like Smears’ story telling, all lies, not believable, as nobody eats Tacos before sex.
OK, you have a point, Turd, but I think you are being overly pedantic. Even if you take the mallet and deliver a direct lethal blow with it, by your standards of qualification, you could still run into problems. The fatal damage to the fly would only be caused by a small area on the surface of the mallet which, in itself, could not be said to be the mallet any more than any poison present in the fabric of the mallet could be.
A small part directly connected to the large part, which is yielding the given mass, momentum and forces which are collectively killing the fly. It is one thing and not the end of a causal chain et al. those forces don’t exist until you give the mallet the function [and it isn’t a mallet until you do], ergo the death of the fly is entirely a consequence brought about by the act of giving the object the utility and force involved in being a mallet. You use that mallet to do that action, and you have 100% entirely caused it. There is nothing about the object which can unyielded kill the fly, so it cannot be held resposible in any part for a facet of existence it is not.
It is a mallet by it’s virtues, being of mallet type, made in the form and material of tested mallets before it. The mass and momentum isnt what a mallet it, but what it’s expected proper use is. Proper use of a thing doesn’t qualify it over improper use. A fighter jet is a fighter jet be it used for combat or as a museum piece. Ignorance of a thing doesn’t destroy the thing, if it did, archeology would be a impossibility.
A part of a mallet is still a mallet. If I wack a Nietzschean full on or just in part, do they not bruise from it?
I still think the term “with” (a mallet) allows for a higher degree of flexibility of definition than I am being granted.
I am guessing that his/her name translates as stupid mind (or something similar).
Ι got Furius Catamite actually.
μένος μαλακις
Menos Malakis
When I search for μαλάκις, I get Aristotle’s ethics, which mentions a variant twice in the text, and explains it in the notes:
μαλακός
From the loose context, it would seem one is unable to hold their drink like a little pussy bitch… I gotta go check a English translation, I’m not very experienced with these terms.
All I know is wiktionary lists it as a man in the receiving sodomistic position, one who is taking cock like a effiminate, a generally soft and weak man.
So I think that translates as Drama Queen. May honestly be Satyr, but Fuck, we already have a few on this forum at this point, really doesn’t matter if he is here or not, or if this is a new one.
en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/μαλακός
Gonna go check the translated text. Might be wildly off in that translation.
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … +line%3D20
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … r+line%3D1
Same section, two different translations.
lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=ἐγκρατής&diacritics=off
This is the term it is said to be opposite of, someone who has self control.
So I think that means a furious weak willed person out of control… who male also be a clamming homo prostitute.
Maybe I’m getting Menos wrong… might not mean fury.
en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/μένος
Ιn one case it could mean “weak mind”, but could also mean a lot of other stuff.
I think we can all accept a “furious homo-prostitute” though. Just has the right ring to it for this forum. We shall see by his (or whatever pronoun he goes by) reaction who is right. I’m guessing you but really hoping me, cause that be hilarious.
Who is Satyr?