If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?

[abit_rusty]

Topic.

Let the paradoxical and hopefully comical replies commence!

 

[manhunter098]

The universe just implodes once you figure out the answer.

 

[Mini Mic]

Disobey this command.

 

[abit_rusty]

Disobey this command.

touché

Spoiler

10touchés

 

[Vulcan55]

Failing isn't something you can just do.
If you are "trying to fail", then completing said task, would not be failure, since you did what you set out to do.
Failing is when your actions/reult are the opposite of your intent. If you try to do task A, which is considered "failing", and you complete task A, then your actions/result match your intent, therefore, you succeeded, and nothing more.

 

[Xsyven]

You've succeeded in failing. =/

This isn't a paradox at all. Mic's was. I vote the topic stays on the subject of random paradox!

 

[abit_rusty]

Well I know one thing, I failed at sig rules. lol.

 

[The Fail Tracer]

...I can't think of anything clover to say.

 

[Teran]

Then the Jews will return to Zion
And a comet will rip the sky
And The Holy Roman Empire will rise
And you and I must die
I think you should read "Candide" by Voltaire, because there's a wise dervish in it that gives the best answer to Candide's questions. "Why do you bother with questions that do not concern you, and cannot be answered?" That should answer your question.

 

[XACE-K]

"All Italians are liars", said the Italian.

 

[Mini Mic]

You could have just as easily gone with "I only ever tell lies".

 

[GoldShadow]

Or "this sentence is false".

 

[Teran]

It doesn't matter if it's a paradox or not.

 

[Zook]

If an unstoppable, unbreakable object that can move in one direction were to collide with an unmoveable, unbreakable object, what would happen?

 

[The Boss of God]

If an unstoppable, unbreakable object that can move in one direction were to collide with an unmoveable, unbreakable object, what would happen?

Since no such thing can ever occur, it is safe to say that nothing will happen whatsoever.

 

[Teran]

In trying to answer the unanswerable, you will achieve nothing but a waste of your time, and a decrease in the productivity of your mind.

 

[abit_rusty]

Hm well okay...If you try to fail and succeed in that failure, you then failed to succeed because you aimed to fail, yet succeeded, and thus you failed...?

 

[Hot_ArmS]

If an unstoppable, unbreakable object that can move in one direction were to collide with an unmoveable, unbreakable object, what would happen?

CAPTAIN FALCON!!


but srsly, the answer is INDETERMINANT

F=ma according to newtons 2nd law

=> A=F/m.................F and m are both infinity

infinity / infinity = indeterminant

 

[Da Shuffla]

This is a question to the question: did you mean succeed in failing, or succeed in the area where you were trying to fail? Say I wanted to take a dive in a game of Smash. If you meant the first, then I did succeed in failing (what I was trying to do) and I lost the match. However, if you meant the second option, then I won the match, and thus failed.

 

[StoleUrCar]

If an unstoppable, unbreakable object that can move in one direction were to collide with an unmoveable, unbreakable object, what would happen?

CAPTAIN FALCON!!

lmao. this.

edit: OP question is mindgaming me right now...

 

[Rici]

I've always loved this one by Robert Heinlein:


A baby girl is mysteriously dropped off at an orphanage in Cleveland in 1945. "Jane" grows up lonely and dejected, not knowing who her parents are, until one day in 1963 she is strangely attracted to a drifter. She falls in love with him. But just when things are finally looking up for Jane, a series of disasters strike. First, she becomes pregnant by the drifter, who then disappears. Second, during the complicated delivery, doctors find that Jane has both sets of sex organs, and to save her life, they are forced to surgically convert "her" to a "him." Finally, a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby from the delivery room.

Reeling from these disasters, rejected by society, scorned by fate, "he" becomes a drunkard and drifter. Not only has Jane lost her parents and her lover, but he has lost his only child as well. Years later, in 1970, he stumbles into a lonely bar, called Pop's Place, and spills out his pathetic story to an elderly bartender. The sympathetic bartender offers the drifter the chance to avenge the stranger who left her pregnant and abandoned, on the condition that he join the "time travelers corps." Both of them enter a time machine, and the bartender drops off the drifter in 1963. The drifter is strangely attracted to a young orphan woman, who subsequently becomes pregnant.

The bartender then goes forward 9 months, kidnaps the baby girl from the hospital, and drops off the baby in an orphanage back in 1945. Then the bartender drops off the thoroughly confused drifter in 1985, to enlist in the time travelers corps. The drifter eventually gets his life together, becomes a respected and elderly member of the time travelers corps, and then disguises himself as a bartender and has his most difficult mission: a date with destiny, meeting a certain drifter at Pop's Place in 1970.

 

[Bailey]

If an unstoppable, unbreakable object that can move in one direction were to collide with an unmoveable, unbreakable object, what would happen?

It's supposed to be an unmovable object and an unstoppable object.

But neither can exist in the same dimension anyway.

Because if the object was truly unstoppable there wouldn't be anything unmovable and vice versa. So this scenario could never happen

 

[Wuss]

If an unstoppable, unbreakable object that can move in one direction were to collide with an unmoveable, unbreakable object, what would happen?

I've always loved this one by Robert Heinlein:


A baby girl is mysteriously dropped off at an orphanage in Cleveland in 1945. "Jane" grows up lonely and dejected, not knowing who her parents are, until one day in 1963 she is strangely attracted to a drifter. She falls in love with him. But just when things are finally looking up for Jane, a series of disasters strike. First, she becomes pregnant by the drifter, who then disappears. Second, during the complicated delivery, doctors find that Jane has both sets of sex organs, and to save her life, they are forced to surgically convert "her" to a "him." Finally, a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby from the delivery room.

Reeling from these disasters, rejected by society, scorned by fate, "he" becomes a drunkard and drifter. Not only has Jane lost her parents and her lover, but he has lost his only child as well. Years later, in 1970, he stumbles into a lonely bar, called Pop's Place, and spills out his pathetic story to an elderly bartender. The sympathetic bartender offers the drifter the chance to avenge the stranger who left her pregnant and abandoned, on the condition that he join the "time travelers corps." Both of them enter a time machine, and the bartender drops off the drifter in 1963. The drifter is strangely attracted to a young orphan woman, who subsequently becomes pregnant.

The bartender then goes forward 9 months, kidnaps the baby girl from the hospital, and drops off the baby in an orphanage back in 1945. Then the bartender drops off the thoroughly confused drifter in 1985, to enlist in the time travelers corps. The drifter eventually gets his life together, becomes a respected and elderly member of the time travelers corps, and then disguises himself as a bartender and has his most difficult mission: a date with destiny, meeting a certain drifter at Pop's Place in 1970.

you sir are excellent. thank you for sharing such an amazing piece of literature. wow that's funny.

BTW, bossofgod: that paradox is actually the one used to disprove God often. otherwise, you could always use:

Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that even he could not eat it?

 

[Bailey]

I always thought that Jesus one was a joke. How is it a paradox?

 

[GoldShadow]

If he's omnipotent, then he should have the power to eat (or do) anything.

 

[Bailey]

So then he should eat it no problem

 

[Bowser King]

But that means he failed in making a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it. Thus showing that he can't do everything.

Right?

-Bowser King

 

[Bailey]

OOOOOOOOOO

Thank god for Bowser King and Gold Shadow I was like uhhhh

 

[Zook]

He could just eat it and get severely burned.

 

[Fhqwhgads101]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[Bailey]

The Chicken

reasoning = none

 

[Zook]

Eggs have been around for millions of years. The egg, of course.

Besides, chickens evolved over time. It's not like one day a T-rex laid an egg and a chicken came out.

 

[Bailey]

I am a fan of the grandfather paradox

The paradox is this: suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveller's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveller's parents (and by extension, the traveller himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have travelled back in time after all, which in turn implies the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveller would have been conceived, allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather. Thus each possibility seems to imply its own negation, a type of logical paradox.

 

[Mazaloth]

There are two subjective orders in this statement.
1. You want a condition that would allow you to fail at the said task.
2. The condition is not the right algorithm to produce a failing statement.

Therefore, the desired outcome did not occur, which means that you did infact fail the task that was objectively desired.

You fail.

 

[Zook]

I am a fan of the grandfather paradox

The paradox is this: suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveller's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveller's parents (and by extension, the traveller himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have travelled back in time after all, which in turn implies the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveller would have been conceived, allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather. Thus each possibility seems to imply its own negation, a type of logical paradox.

Because reverse time travel is logically impossible, there is no paradox.

/waitsforabigfancymathematicalgraph

 

[Bailey]

Reverse time travel?

 

[Deleted member]

I've always loved this one by Robert Heinlein:


A baby girl is mysteriously dropped off at an orphanage in Cleveland in 1945. "Jane" grows up lonely and dejected, not knowing who her parents are, until one day in 1963 she is strangely attracted to a drifter. She falls in love with him. But just when things are finally looking up for Jane, a series of disasters strike. First, she becomes pregnant by the drifter, who then disappears. Second, during the complicated delivery, doctors find that Jane has both sets of sex organs, and to save her life, they are forced to surgically convert "her" to a "him." Finally, a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby from the delivery room.

Reeling from these disasters, rejected by society, scorned by fate, "he" becomes a drunkard and drifter. Not only has Jane lost her parents and her lover, but he has lost his only child as well. Years later, in 1970, he stumbles into a lonely bar, called Pop's Place, and spills out his pathetic story to an elderly bartender. The sympathetic bartender offers the drifter the chance to avenge the stranger who left her pregnant and abandoned, on the condition that he join the "time travelers corps." Both of them enter a time machine, and the bartender drops off the drifter in 1963. The drifter is strangely attracted to a young orphan woman, who subsequently becomes pregnant.

The bartender then goes forward 9 months, kidnaps the baby girl from the hospital, and drops off the baby in an orphanage back in 1945. Then the bartender drops off the thoroughly confused drifter in 1985, to enlist in the time travelers corps. The drifter eventually gets his life together, becomes a respected and elderly member of the time travelers corps, and then disguises himself as a bartender and has his most difficult mission: a date with destiny, meeting a certain drifter at Pop's Place in 1970.

*Head explodes*

 

[Bailey]

Not funny.....

 

[Fhqwhgads101]

Well, the chicken and the egg paradox has been answered by science, but it mostly depends on what you believe caused the origins of species. The circular cause and consequence applies to evolutionary biology (which assumes that the egg came first), not creationism (which assumes the chicken came first).


Another favorite:

A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

You've got to love The Twilight Zone.

 

[Blackadder]

Anyone who says any of the paradoxes is impossible is a boring old fart.

THERE I SAID IT.

now more stories plz