MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin - Re: You idiots are driving me crazy

> >
> > I asked for a name, but you merely categorized it as an abstract idea. Well, what
> if
> > you were the person to invent such a contraption? Then, what would you call it?
>
> If you're talking Back to the Future, It would be a flying car.

Thank You. You've admitted (maybe, conceded?) that much -at least.

I'm going to guess you said that because it has wheels, and can drive on a road.

> If you're talking
> Jetsons, it wouldn't have anything resembling "car" in the name. Most likely
> something with the word "transport" in it.

And likewise, you say it ISN'T a car because it doesn't have wheels, and traveling on roads isn't possible.

Well, what if Doc Brown drove the DeLorean to a rough part of the neighborhood and the tires got jacked?

I will assume, at this point, that you're putting too much weight into the definition of what a "car" is (what parts and features make it up), rather than what it can DO (the functionality). As for the (for your sake I'll refer to it as a) 'Hovering Transport Vehicle' (a'la "The Jetsons") ....the idea of a 'Hovering Transport Vehicle' would essentially replace what we typically refer to as a 'car' (has wheels and goes vroom, vroom on the road). So, if one thing is done away with to make way for something more advanced - typically the NEW item takes upon the name of the old item. Please note that I'm referring to it's functionality, not necessarily its physical construction.

An example might be the Wheel. The 1st wheel was carved out of stone. By the time an inflatable, rubberized, doughnut shaped object came along.... An example of what you're doing/the way you're acting would be you stating that the newly rubberized, inflatable doughnut shaped object is NOT a wheel, simply because the traditional definition of a wheel is a doughnut shape carved out of a rock.

Well, that's what you look like you're doing anyway. If you can't agree that a Jetson type of Hovering Transport Vehicle is a flying car (or just another TYPE of car), then at least understand why we think you appear to be so stubborn when sticking by your definition of what a car is.

> > No need to answer that one. It's just something to contemplate; and, we all know
> that
> > by you answering it, you would then have to admit defeat.
>
> Not in the slightest.

j/k

LEVEL-4

Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/05/15 09:02 AM)