Anyone think that hairdresser inserted her own neuroses there? That poor innocent girl saw her hair sticking up everywhere and in every direction and made a comment on it. Then she was emotionally bowled over (double meaning here), which quickly upset amd confused her. I think we so often insert our own complex adult values in to the simple lives of children and ruin things. I love watching truly gifted young child educators talk to children about deep things, it's so open and honest. Versus this.

How attached are you to your joints?

(and yes, the double meaning was intentional )

*quality ridiculousness
I love how doubles means one on the "floor" and the other upside down on the "ceiling".
*promote

Writing: All of these shows are what we might call 'clever,' which is generally a big selling point for me. Unexpected, heavily layered, structurally complex writing for comedic effect - a lot of recursive, iteratively growing humor. They're all also quite big on dialogue, and are comparatively 'dark'.

Themes: All of them also feature self-destructive and dysfunctional characters, to different degrees. In addition to this:

Rick & Morty: Does brilliant deconstruction of science fiction concepts without a condescending outside perspective. An amazing example is (spoilers) the time that Rick makes Cronenbergs of the entire global population, or the time that Morty's indecisiveness creates split quantum timelines.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5A5Mb__fiA

Always Sunny: Never shies away from exploring the darkest consequences of its incredibly self-absorbed, idiotic, low attention span, high energy, self-destructive cast.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_49P1RtqU0

Arrested Development: ...I'm not good at writing these synopses; I just wanted to see if I could figure out why I love these shows so much. Anyway, Arrested Development is the most heavily layered of all of them, so in just a few episodes it builds up an incredible library of call-backs, double meanings, etc. It's also less abrasive than the other two, if you have something against offensive shows.

...I don't know if there any good example scenes. You should just watch it.

Very funny. Great ending. So what if he didn't recognize the place; just assume the drugs wipe his memory from the past day or something.

(Is there some double-meaning with "instalation" I'm not getting or it is just a typo in both the title and tags?)

To quote the great Wittgenstein "meaning is use". Language and meaning are nuanced and complicated, but most of all, subjective and instrumental (by which I mean something we make up). This is why we frequently use otherwise restrictive and oversimplified analogies to illustrate specific points, and sometimes arbitrary (and always artificial) terms to sum up otherwise much more expansive phenomena.

In this case @Babymech used one to quite neatly surmise the different ways we interpret accidental puns and double meanings. Crude vs Prude was just a succinct way of labelling the two predominant archetypical responses to a potential double entendre.

One is to tend to overlook or ignore it (Prude)
One is to recognise and even call attention to it (Crude)

There were no value judgements implicit in the way @Babymech did this. You brought those yourself, projected them outwards and rather rudely set about insulting Babymech for the perceived slight/prejudicial remark.

The fact you got a rude response back was not validation, it was retaliation. You called him/her a dick basically without provocation!

"In some countries / regions, saying someone is crude is quite the insult."

A term charged with historical prejudicial hatred indeed! Absolutely no room for interpretation or innocent intention there. (And God forbid anyone anywhere ever be offended by something because they might have different associations with a words meanings and associations)

But let's just assume @Babymech was making a value judgement anyway. "Prude" and "Crude" create wildly varying emotional responses. From pride to shame. Who takes prescient? Who's right to not be offended counts most?

Much like considerably more sensitive words (like ones beginning with N and F for instance), context is absolutely everything. Words have no meaning outside of their context, they are entirely relativistic things. Even the cold hard definition in a dictionary is a contextual arrangement (in this case the dictionary & the linguistic paradigm which is documents).

If there was hatred in Babymech's heart when he/she made their comment I certainly did not recognise it. The same point made in a different way might have raised my ire too, but here I can only see a slight you brought to the table yourself so to speak.

I've done it myself before, but then I've also apologised for starting shit that wasn't really there before too

You would be correct if you detected a slightly snotty attitude in my reply, it pops up mostly when people start throwing around unsolicited abuse (or say unspeakably dumb things but I'm certainly not accusing you of that here, just a needless conflict). You'd be amazed how fast it can disappear though!

Much love.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, and that is understating the case. It has a language, grammatical syntax, error correction, vocabulary and meaning. If you read the article you will see that scientists were stunned to find a hidden code operating within the code. Even a superficial understanding of DNA is enough to see that it is not by any means "primitive" but actually it is advanced beyond our capability to understand it.

That isn't the argument though, that DNA is sophisticated, which it is. The argument is that the information in DNA is proof of design. What that design is intended to do is another question. You may look at certain features and say, here is a terrible design, simply because you don't understand the intentions of the designer. Only a super-intellect could have designed DNA, and I don't think that is going out on a limb by any means.

Did someone say America wasn't perfect? Holy cow!!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED to discover that a country has not been a utopia since the day it was founded!!!
Most of the things America did wrong was done by the gov't, which most of you people seem to adore, especially since Obama has been in charge. Yet Obama continues the same policies of Bush, except for all the apologies.
Hello drones! (that has a double meaning)

He was doing OK for 30 minutes or so until he tried to blame "the most bloody century in history" on atheism, I'm assuming, because of their coincidence. Argument from coincidence means nothing, especially considering all the wars that have been waged in the name of one religion or another. My guess is our increased population and increased killing technology account for why we are able to kill more people.

With his attack on the student who insisted, "Everything is meaningless", he's committing the common error of conflating two different meanings of the same word. The student wasn't saying, "There is no such thing such that it has meaning, including this statement." He was agreeing that there is no teleological reason for our existence. Zacharias twisted his words with double meanings.

His insight about emptiness coming from indulgence in pleasure and the disappointment after is accurate, as long as the pleasure being indulged in isn't self-fulfilling. When I work hard to prepare something that will make others happy, I get immense pleasure before, during and after. It's only when I'm focusing on mundane things like computer games or (sorry y'al) the Sift that I feel pleasure during, but little pleasure after.

Also, people like working towards things. If you think that you're going to be happier once you reach a goal, you're wrong. But if you think you're going to be happier while you're reaching goals, you'll probably be right. If you'd asked Boris Becker how he felt after his first championship, he might have felt better. After that he realized that there was nowhere else for him to go. Sounds like he was also particularly prone to depression on top of that, though I know nothing of him.

Further, all these arguments from the Hong Kong tycoon to Becker to Hitler are anecdotal, and not statistically significant. None demonstrate anything except that it's possible for a person to reach material goals and not be happy. If they were conclusive, then by the same token one would only need to find a single suicidal believer to disprove religion from the other side. Statistics showing significantly less depression among religious people than non-believers would be meaningful, and they may exist. But they still wouldn't demonstrate lack of faith to be a wrong position, just a less advantageous one.

59:50 Does Zacharias think only religious people find meaning in their children? 1:01:00 Or that religious people don't try and find happiness in fame and wealth?

His final argument about being in error about the Christian religion as opposed to being in error about atheism overlooks all the evil things people are capable of only through justification by religion.

I notice the older daughter from ALF is doing just fine @1:21. Tell me that is not her doppelgänger!

I prefer "doppler"ganger, as named after the physicist, the name has a slapstick double-meaning to it, that I like... I assume using the Doppler Effect you can figure out how they work instead of the originals fashion...

Anyway, I'm glad I don't live in an area prone to sinkholes. Granted with the right scenario they can happen anywhere, I just don't like it when my natural environment is already trying to kill me--especially when we typically already have life to worry about and that is usually enough.

r10k, I studied the Bible with a respected religious man; one of the few Americans allowed to view and help decipher the Dead Sea Scrolls. We used an annotated version of the Bible that explained the puns, double meanings and other linguistic aspects that would be lost on someone who just picked up a King James at Barnes & Noble. My Prof. provided context, historical and cultural. He showed us more ancient Mesopotamian mythology that contained stories remarkably similar to those in the Bible. He, a religious man (Jewish), presented the book for what it was, with no apologies or attempts to shield us from the books' many contradictions and logical inconsistencies. Warts and all.

I seem to meet all your criteria for being able to have an opinion on the Bible. I've got context, depth and the instruction of a very wise religious scholar. No offense, but I probably understand this book better than you ever will, and yet....

My critical mind tells me this is mythology, like Zeus, or Beowulf, or Gilgamesh, or Frodo, Bilbo and Dumbledore. These are campfire stories from pre-scientific times that attempt to explain the -then many- mysteries of existence. Those days are gone, and we now know that we are not at the center of the universe, that space isn't made of water, that stars are not lights, that the world is not flat, that humans are part of an evolutionary chain and that the earth is billions of years old. Perhaps it's time to embrace the future, r10k, and leave the cave drawings behind you.

Just one person's opinion.... I could be wrong.

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^Stingray:
WTF, no double penetration?

Actually I had turned away from the screen for a moment when he said "Double Fisting" and I turned back like WTF???

Double meaning! OMG!


Aww maaan! double quote!

Wait, this is starting to look like a triple quote!

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^Stingray:
WTF, no double penetration?

Actually I had turned away from the screen for a moment when he said "Double Fisting" and I turned back like WTF???


Double meaning! OMG!

Never seen where the *downunder channel had a double meaning...

They have to get off their knees and push it through.

Sorry, that's just one double meaning too far for me.