[Groop] Intense debate - NOT political, I promise

azamin zainol abidin azamin7 at streamyx.com
Mon Nov 3 23:31:49 PST 2008


maybe if when Chuck Norris is the woodchuck

Tone wrote:

>	So, this is not exactly on-topic, but I really need to resolve a
>very important debate question. I could not really think of a proper
>forum where I could pose this question to though, so logically the Groop
>came to mind as the most appropriate group. So here goes...
>
>	Is the correct saying...
>1) "How much wood WOULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck COULD chuck
>wood?"
>	...OR...
>2) "How much wood COULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck WOULD chuck
>wood?"
>
>	My wife and I got into an OBVIOULSY very heated debate over this
>mental dilemma. There are CLEARLY different meanings by the slightly
>variant wordings in each of the two phrases.
>	To clarify, the wording in the first phrase should naturally be
>interpreted as asking how much wood a woodchuck is hypothetically
>WILLING to chuck IF any woodchuck is even ABLE to chuck wood in the
>first place.
>	Meanwhile, the wording of the second phrase carries with it the
>implied quandary of what maximum quantity of wood a woodchuck is
>physically capable of chucking IF the woodchuck in question is even
>willing to chuck any wood around in the first place.
>
>	Over the hundreds or even thousands of years since man had first
>discovered woodchucks, there has always been an assumption a woodchuck
>is capable of chucking wood. That assumption has developed simply
>because the small woodland creature in question happens to be cursed
>with a title, which implies "woodchucks" throw wood around. I personally
>have never witnessed this activity, so I think man must re-evaluate
>whether or not it is fair to woodchucks to name them as such.
>
>	If the result of such an investigation into woodchucks discovers
>evidence, which concludes woodchucks do NOT in fact throw wood around,
>then humanity would be capable of determining without question the true
>validity of the wording in the first proposed phrase. However, if this
>is the case, then the wording of the first phrase would clearly be
>logical ONLY in a THEORETICAL inquiry for the ages. This is because
>humanity would never actually be able to witness ANY quantities of wood
>being strewn about by woodchucks. Instead, man would be cursed to only
>being able to endlessly hypothesize the im-possible quantities of wood a
>woodchuck flings about in a conceptual universe where woodchucks chuck
>wood. The first question would therefore be much like one of those
>introspective Zen questions similar to the one which asks whether a tree
>makes a sound if no one is around to hear it fall to the ground.
>	For more clarification of this two-tongued phrase dilemma we
>should direct our inspection toward the wording of the second phrase,
>which before even asking its question, seemingly presumes a wood chuck
>can in fact propel wood in varying directions. With this presumption
>placed in advance, I think it is clear exactly what the wording in the
>second question is inquiring about. Thus no further investigation into
>the secondary question is needed. Only THEE ultimate answer is in
>question, and humanity should therefore fund scientific studies to
>finally determine the amount of wood the most physically-fit woodchuck
>is capable of hurling around before his (OR HER) tiny little heart gives
>out. That is of course without question only to be determined if or when
>that same woodchuck is actually even in the mood to chuck wood to the
>max.
>
>	Unfortunately determining the validity of the first or second
>phrase over the other may not conclude this debate. The reason is
>because there may be the validity of other wording variations at stake.
>For instance one can also pose the third inquiry of:
>
>3) "How much wood COULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck COULD chuck
>wood?"
>
>	In the third variable instance of the question, one wonders the
>THEORETICAL amount of wood the most physically-fit conceptual woodchuck
>is capable of chucking before his (OR HER) tiny little heart gives out.
>This form of the question does not presume woodchucks can chuck wood,
>but rather it accepts the possibility woodchucks might not throw wood
>around and poses its inquiry in a hypothetical manner. However, it does
>not suggest any willingness or objection on the part of the conceptual
>woodchuck. In the imaginary universe of the third question it may be
>implied there is willingness granted by the hypothetical woodchuck to
>subject itself to a possibly fatal experiment. Simultaneously, the
>implication of FORCED testing upon the conceptual woodchuck, who is
>subject to the scientific virtual experiment, can also be interpreted by
>the wording in the third question. This therefore leaves not only the
>question of the theoretical amount of wood the most physically-fit
>conceptual woodchuck is capable of chucking before his (OR HER) tiny
>little heart gives out, but also the moral dilemma in wondering whether
>the theoretical scientists, who performed the hypothetical experiment,
>did so with the conceptual woodchuck's consent or if they violated
>animal cruelty laws.
>
>	This all does not end here either because yet another form of
>the question is possible to pose in this fourth variation...
>
>4) "How much wood WOULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck WOULD chuck
>wood?"
>
>	Unfortunately this form of the inquiry is somewhat redundant
>because it not only asks what the quantity of wood a woodchuck is
>willing to heave, but also involves the quantity of wood a woodchuck is
>willing to heave AFTER that woodchuck has DECIDED to chuck wood in the
>first place. Thus the answer may never be known by anyone else other
>than the woodchuck, who is willing to enter into the testing AND whose
>determination might vary depending on his (OR HER) mood and energy level
>at the time following the point at which the wood chuck has voluntarily
>decided to start tossing wood around. Such a question should therefore
>be more properly worded in a manner consistent with the phrasing, "Hey,
>Me! Am I willing to chuck wood right now, and if so, then how much wood
>do I THINK I would FEEL like chucking?" This form of the question should
>be repeatedly asked internally by the minds of all woodchucks at
>numerous moments in their lives when both mood and energy levels might
>vary. Having the results of such a question asked at multiple points in
>time by every woodchuck (or at least a vast majority of them) externally
>recorded in a single database would bring us all closer to determining a
>statistical minimum, average, and maximum amount of wood to be cast
>about by most woodchucks.
>	Please keep something else in mind though. This fourth form of
>the question still takes for granted woodchucks possess the ability to
>fling wood around. Therefore, if the results of the investigation into
>woodchucks suggested much earlier discovers evidence, which concludes
>woodchucks do NOT in fact throw wood around, we can at least determine
>the fourth question is null and void.
>
>	And before anyone challenges my mental capacity, do not think I
>am small of mind simply because I am in the Groop. Those of you who
>might do so can be comforted by the fact I have also considered many of
>the implications of rephrasing the varying forms of the question by
>replacing the words "could" and "would" with the word "should." I can
>put your minds at ease by informing you the results of such rephrasing
>would simply put undue pressure upon the woodchuck population. This is
>because no person should impose expectations upon any woodchuck for how
>much wood said woodchuck might be capable of or willing to chuck if said
>woodchuck is either willing and/or even capable of chucking wood in the
>first place. I strongly believe only nature should be the deciding
>factor on what amount of wood a woodchuck should be expected to chuck if
>a woodchuck is both willing and able to chuck wood in the first place.
>Clearly, evolution has repeatedly proven woodchucks can or can not chuck
>wood depending on whether chucking wood is a necessary activity to
>woodchuck survival or woodchucks are simply incapable of chucking wood.
>Either woodchucks are able to chuck wood or they are not because
>woodchucks are still living among us today. We should therefore not
>impose further wood chucking expectations upon them beyond what amount
>of wood chucking is or is not required by their survival.
>
>	...so you can all clearly see the psychological challenge my
>wife and I are faced with. This may very well overtake the ultimate
>calculation and analysis of the mathematical Pi (which by the way is 22
>divided by 7) among intellectual scientific circles. Perhaps Sergio and
>Mark will take it upon themselves to somehow investigate the solution to
>the woodchuck dilemma by incorporating the problem solving within the
>storyline of a new Groo story in order to find this very important
>solution.
>	Ok, so I admit this whole woodchuck dilemma is probably
>ridiculous and a complete waste of time, but I bet you never thought I
>would somehow link it back to the on-topic subject of Groo. :) Yet, one
>can still carry on the debate. It is not like we have any current new
>Groo stories to distract our intellectual capacities.
>
>Best wishes,
>_TONE_
>
>  
>



More information about the Groop mailing list