Added: 1 year ago
From: thecodewerks
Views: 39,159
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (106)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I like Stewart.

  • sheldon is so right

  • as we know now, Sheldon is correct. Team Dick! (no homo)

  • tomatoes are fruits botanically and vegetables culinarily!

  • Really dude?

  • How come Dick Grayson as Nightwing isn't a option because he's another superhero, while

    Jason Todd is also another supervillain as Red Hood. By that logic Tim Drake should be the new batman. In my opinion though Dick Grayson is the better choise as he has more experience.

  • @9thshaolindragon

    Well this argument is futile cause he did become Batman before Bruce came back, I'm sure that would of became permanent in the 'unlikely' event DC kept Bruce dead.

  • @9thshaolindragon Tim Drake is a hero in his own right as well... Red Robin.

  • @unamaxify & ninjajesus81: I agree with Stuart on one point: these guys can be very stubborn.

  • Sheldon is right in this one but Stuart later counters with a post-InfCri Joe Chill,which is completely valid!

  • Comment removed

  • The best thing is that Sheldon is absolutely RIGHT!!!!

    If Stuart was right, Batman would be a murderous sociopath

  • i can't say anything about the batman argument

    but Sheldon is right when he says that "wrong" is not subject to gradation

    the tomato being a vegetable is 100% wrong just as it being a bridge.

    A fruit is more similar to a vegetable than to a bridge is entirely subjective

    & doesn't make mistaking a tomato for a vegetable any less wrong.

  • @unamaxify The classification of tomato is sometimes fruit and sometimes vegetable, depending on who is classifying it. A botanist would call it a fruit, a cook would call it a vegetable. So sometimes it's a fruit and sometimes it's a vegetable. But it's never a suspension bridge.

  • @ninjajesus81

    yeah i don't buy that.

    A cook has no authority over plant-classification.

    A botanist on the other-hand has.

    Your argument said that the definition of the tomato is depending on the frame of reference(either the cook's or the botanist's view)

    and you say the tomato is never the same as a bridge:

    -Your brain interprets reality as electrical signals.

    -so in that frame of reference a tomato and a bridge are the same thing

    -they are information in your brain

    = you're wrong

  • @unamaxify Look up the supreme court case Nix v. Hedden.

    A tomato is never the same as a bridge. You're saying they're both electrical signals in my brain? No, the tomato itself is not an electrical signal. Just like if I take a picture of a tomato and a bridge, that doesn't make the tomato and bridge both pictures, therefore the same thing.

  • @ninjajesus81

    Your argument fails because there is no absolute certainty about reality

    other than "I think therefor my mind exists"

    It could be that the tomato is nothing else than electrical signals in your brain.

    (think hyper-realistic virtual reality)

    Because you don't know for sure you can only make claims about the nature of the tomato in a subjective reference frame.

    Subjective reference frames however are not relevant for questions about

    right or wrong.

    Do you get it now ?

  • @unamaxify Well if you're going to appeal to solipsism as a last resort, then there's nothing left to talk about.

    Absolute certainty is meaningless, because we don't really "know" anything. Which means you could resort to solipsism in any argument about any topic.

    So all it proves is you realize you were backed into a corner and you had no real argument left.

    Not to mention you contradict yourself by stating for absolutely certain that there's no absolute certainty.

  • CTN

    “contradicting yourself by stating for absolutely certain that there's no absolute certainty”

    No i'm stating with absolute certainty that there is no certainty other than the existence of ones own mind outside a subjective reference frame.

    Within a subjective reference frame i can be certain of all kinds of things like math, logic or the above statement.

    Logic in it's self is a subjective reference frame, outside of it one could define one with different logical rules.

  • @ninjajesus81

    No my appeal to solipsism was to show you your contradiction about your

    absolute certainty that the tomato was never in the same category than a bride.

    I wanted to show you that your standards to determine the level of wrong

    was entirely arbitrary and not based on logic. (please don't straw-men me)

    My argument against gradations of wrong still is that "wrong" isn't weakened by an arbitrary defined similarity to right. 1=1,01 is just as wrong as 1=5000

    CTN

  • @unamaxify I never claimed absolute certainty. You're the one bringing that up.

    And again, you're wrong. 1.01 can be equal to 1 if you round to 1 decimal place. 5000 can never be rounded to 1.

    And you can stop with the rambling about absolute certainty. All you're doing is trying to save face.

  • @ninjajesus81

    you brought up certainty: "No the tomato is not an electrical signal in the brain"

    -

    So you don't refute my argument about certainty

    and just respond with ad hominem.

    -

    So how do you determine the upper boundary: at what point a number can't be rounded anymore, without making it up arbitrarily.

    Because if you argue that that the border of wrong is arbitrarily i can justify everything, math, logic & morality would be devoid of meaning.

    No more special pleading fallacy

  • @unamaxify I didn't bring up absolute certainty. All I did was make a true statement.

    You have no argument to refute about certainty. You're resorting to solipsism, which is a pathetic attempt to save face in any conversation.

    A number can always be rounded. And the point of rounding is so that you're not making up arbitrary numbers. If I drove 2 feet and measured it to 2.00000001 feet with a meter stick, then I would have to round that to 2, since the .00000001 would be arbitrary.

  • @ninjajesus81 "All I made was a true statement" You say that you didn't bring up certainty, so your statement could just as well be false -> what's the point then ? (a truth claim isn't tethered to certainty ?) - true you can round any number, just as well as you can add 5 to any number the fact is after that operation it wont be the same any more. - You're implying that without gradations of wrong we can't have decimal numbers (integer only) ? ->that's a false dichotomy fallacy
  • @unamaxify So your argument is that we shouldn't say anything, because we can't be absolutely certain about anything?

    Is that what your argument has suddenly become?

  • @ninjajesus81

    And that's called: extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions fallacy.

    Could you please for once not violate logic, it makes you look like a fool.

    You stated gradations of wrong could existed because you were certain about the nature of a tomato. I just showed you that you can't use that to support your argument

    because you can't be certain about it.

    Your hole argument is based on everyday-speech error tolerance, not logic.

    "wrong" is Boolean, face it

  • @unamaxify Extending to ridiculous proportions? Why should I believe you wouldn't appeal to solipsism in every argument where you're backed into a corner about a specific factual statement?

    There is not one single thing you can say where I can't apply solipsism to say you don't know for absolute certainty that what you said is true.

    That's what you did, even though I never claimed absolute certainty, you keep acting like I did.

  • @unamaxify And if you're going to say I can't be certain about a tomato because we can only be certain of ourselves, then that means you can't be certain about anything, including your certainty that I can't be certain about the nature of a tomato. So not only is your argument pointless and an obvious attempt to save face, but your argument can also be turned back around on you.

  • @unamaxify Not to mention you're all over the place with your argument. You tried negating my statement that a tomato and a bridge are never the same by saying that they can both be electrical signals in my brain (as if they both actually turn into electrical signals). Now you've abandoned that and went on to solipsism, which has nothing to do with the electrical signal thing.

    I guess you realized that was a stupid argument and went to your last resort which you probably always use.

  • @ninjajesus81

    Oh boy did i hit a nerve ?

    You're all over the place ripping parts of my arguments out context

    piling on more logical fallacies.

    Its like a vicious circle every-time i expose a part of your argument as a logical fallacy

    you come up with a new fallacy, it's becoming a bit tedious.

    _

    A bridge & a tomato are both matter (protons electrons & neutrons)

    -Their similarity is depending on: at what scale you measure.

    -I could argue two tomatoes are never or always the same.

  • @unamaxify Good troll tactic; call everything a fallacy without explaining what was the fallacy or why it's a fallacy.

    Just stop.

  • @ninjajesus81

    Well your last comment was a 3-Part answers,

    i was just too lazy to deconstruct all that.

    Partly because i already refuted most of it in previous comments.

    But i'm happy to see that you finally came to your senses

    and finally accepted that gradations of wrong can't be rationalized.

    Or am i to understand that you think that calling me a troll would

    prove you right ?

    Oh wait that would be another Ad Hominem fallacy.

  • @unamaxify Now you're claiming victory, proving you never cared about what was true, only that you can consider this a win on your record.

  • @ninjajesus81

    Victory ? is there a competition ? what's the price ?

    -

    Well i asked if i was to interpreted your previous comment as concession

    since you didn't bring forth any argument, or respond to the one i previously made

    -> You know the one about how you solve the problem of arbitrariness how one measures the similarity of 2 objects, and at what point you were justified to label them being the same as "half wrong" (or give me a precise definition of "half wrong")

  • @unamaxify This was over the moment you brought up absolute certainty. That proved you had nothing to say.

  • @ninjajesus81

    So are going to answer ?

    "how you solve the problem of arbitrariness how one measures the similarity of 2 objects, and at what point you were justified to label them being the same as "half wrong" (or give me a definition of "half wrong")"

    -

    Last time you just gave an example

    of which i disputed the validity, you just claimed certainty without proving it.

    To avoid this i want you to give a precise formal definition of half-wrong not an example.

    (no circular logic pls)

  • @ninjajesus81 Exactly! Well put! Even if you omit that it is sometimes called a vegetable, a tomato is related to a vegetable by simply being a plant. The only relation a tomato has with a suspension bridge is that they are both made up of matter which makes for a very very loose relation.

    While something can only be right or wrong, the degree to which something is right or wrong is certainly subject to gradation. Our justice system subjects criminals to sentences based on how 'wrong' they are.

  • @thecodewerks Good point. Jaywalking doesn't carry the same punishment as genocide. I guess that other guy thinks it should.

  • Sheldon is right! Batman is not a killer and is heavily opposed to guns. Jason is a merciless killer with a heavy use of guns, not to say that he isn't a "hero" in his own right. Also, Dick evolved into Nightwing as a form of promotion, he was always being groomed to be the next Batman, it is simply another promotion in his life. It's what Bruce would have wanted. Not to say Jason wouldn't bring interesting new light to the character, but he is far from made for the job. He is best as Red Hood.

  • "tea for me please"

  • Kicker: Sheldon was RIGHT!

  • But Dick did become Batman and Damien was Robin, neither Jason nor Tim. and anyway JASON IS EVIL, HE WILL NEVER BE BATMAN!

  • @ZADER4427 he's not exactly evil he just does bad things for a good reason he's more of an anti-hero

  • @TheEastunder Well yeah.... that's what I meant to say

  • I don't know one single person who supported JASON TODD as batman. Maybe they're trying to play Stuart up as some kind of rebel with different ideas. But if that is the case then they really should have chosen a better way of doing so. Because even if Stuart wanted Jason to be the next batman was there ever really any chance of that happening? I really doupt that. And even if i accept that. Why did Sheldon not at any point later gloat about being right? I thought he'd be all over that.

  • @loanser It would've been funny if this had been mentioned in a later episode. A little easter egg for fans. ^.^

  • lolwut jason todd is evil

  • ...I have never liked this show, but if they continue this conversation, not only will I begin watching, I will buy every season.

    On Bluray.

    This is not a joke.

  • i agree with Sheldon. If Bruce really is dead, Dick should be Batman. I love Jason Todd but he really shouldn't be Batman. I agree with most everything he stands for but... Batman? sorry Jay. (the damn reboot is really screwing with my headcannon and theories)

  • I groooaned in pain when Sheldon followed them in...

  • what episode is this ?

  • @miki7ish Season 2 Episode 20, The Hofstadter Isotope

  • cock blocked.

  • I would like to have coffee with her...... :) coffe = sex

  • wait doesn't Jason become the Red Hood?

  • I'm just trying to imagine batman and robin with Jason and Damian. It would probably lead to more mayhem in Gotham than all the super villains combined!

  • "it's a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, its very wrong to say its a suspension bridge" a keen and swift refutation.

  • Jason Todd? Is he joking?  He thinks the Red Hood who kills people should take over the cowl? Well jokes on him because Dick does become Batman and he's way better than Jason!

  • Terry McGuinness succeeded batman before he died so they're both wrong.

  • @YouSmellLikeACat

    Apparently you're not keeping up with the comic books. In one of the universes, batman DID die and Dick Grayson took on the role of the batman after Bruce was killed. They're not wrong, you're just misinformed.

  • @YouSmellLikeACat The event they are talking about takes place way before Terry's time. In 'Battle for the Cowl' all four robins fight for batman's cowl because they thought he was dead. Dick wins and is currently fulfilling the role of Batman in Gotham along side Damian Wayne (AKA Bruce's bastard child). Later on through the effort of Tim (who SHOULD have been the successor to the cowl in my opinion) it was found out that Bruce is indeed not dead (just busy). ^_^

  • @YouSmellLikeACat That's true. (I liked Terry McGuinness.)

  • batman 2 cant be jason tood because wasent he killed by the joker? correct me if im wrong

  • @DeathByChocolate1995 He was brought back to life by good-ol Ras-al-gul. Lazarus pits are amazing things...

  • @Dranzira dang im really behind on my batman arent I? hmm cool glad 2 know he's alive always liked him

  • @Dranzira I'm assuming that you think that because it's how it happened in the movie Under the Red Hood, but actually Jason wasn't brought back my Ra's. He was resurrected when Super Boy Prime ripped a hole in time and space. And if fact, it was Tala Al-Gul that put Jason in the Lazarus pit to restore his mind (because he was in a coma-like state). Ra's wanted Tala to kill Jason. If anyone wants the story, they should read the mini series, Red Hood: The Lost Days (it's only 6 books).

  • @Abducted777 the best part about this post is if you dont know anything about the series every 3rd word is gibberish.

  • Other than scientific things, this is the ONLY time in 4 seasons that Sheldon was right about anything.

  • @hammermjh right about gradations of wrong or right about the successor to the bat cowl?

  • @thecodewerks Right about Batman.

  • @thecodewerks both

  • @hammermjh Sheldon is right about everything. Even about reserving a seat on his sofa. It is his home and therefore rules. If someone considers it rude their interpretation is subjective. Any argument against Sheldon about morals and social convention is logically wrong as they were instituted by man, (containing judgement by a human mind) and ergo are also subjective. Sheldon is always right!

  • It's not more wrong to call a tomato a vegetable than a suspension bridge, both statements are incorrect, correction is a boolean variable, it's either true or false and both of the statements are false, just because a tomatoe may appear to be a vegetable doesn't make it more right that saying it's a suspension bridge. Spartans in Halo look like robots but they are neither robots nor aircraft carriers

  • Jason Todd as Batman? Absolutely not.

    Doesn't he know about The Red Hood incident? back then, it was either going to be Dick Greyson or Damian Wayne.

    Pffft, Jason Todd, what a failure of a nerd.

  • Stuart yawning at 0:46 hahahaha sorry, it's one of those things that you don't usually notice... but accidentally, I DID! hahaha

  • Sheldon: Moore Wrong 0_0 1:09

    lol sheldon face Epic!

  • That argument makes no sense. A vegetable is as much not a fruit as a sspension bridge is not a fruit. The overlap of produce is insignificant if the tomato is specifically referred to as a vegetable, which it is 100% not, just as it is 100% not a suspension bridge. One of have to argue a tomato is at least 0.01% vegetable for it to be less wrong than a suspension bridge.

  • @VexonCross Sheldon?!?!

  • Sheldon is always right. Dick Grayson is Batman and he is one hell of a Batman too.

  • @AfroNinja0077 Stewart was right about one thing, Nightwing was a superhero in his own right. When I found out that Dick Grason became the new Batman, I cheered.

  • Although Batman did say In Hush that Jason will be the greatest detective ever, Jason dies. So you'd think that Stuart would know that.

  • @Lumberjackington Yes, it is basic Batman knowledge the Jason Todd kicked the metaphorical bucket in A Death in the Family. However in 2005 the Under the Red Hood storyline was created. It was revealed in Batman #638 that the new Red Hood was actually Jason Todd who had been brought back to life. He has since become somewhat of an antihero character and is currently in jail after the events of Batman and Robin #6. (Although apparently not for long when Batman and Robin # 23 comes out in May.)

  • While I do agree with Stuart that Nightwing is a superhero in his own right, I must side with Sheldon about Dick Grayson becoming Batman's successor. (Imagine my joy when it actually happened in the comics.)

  • Sheldon the cock block.. i just realized it

  • LMAO - Sheldon invites himself in.

  • This happened to me in class. I solved a math equation and my teacher said "Oh I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong" then I looked at him... well you just watched the video I think you know what happened

  • I hope Leonard appreciates Sheldon after this because Penny (the loosey goosey that she is) looked like she was gonna rock Stuart's world.

  • Funny thing is Sheldon is right

  • the second robin would kill joker

  • They are both wrong about batman. Neither of the first 2 robins could be him.

  • @MissQuattrone Actually Sheldon was right. At the end of the Battle for the Cowl series Dick Grayson took up the mantel as Batman with Damian Wayne as Robin. Bruce has since then returned, proving not to have been dead but rather lost in time. Now both Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson are Batman, Bruce is traveling around the world creating Batman Inc. while Dick stays in Gotham to protect the city. If you don't believe me look it up on Wikipedia, although I suggest reading the comics.

  • @chibibirdiechan The only true batman is the Bruce Wayne, even if others follow in his footsteps.

  • @chibibirdiechan dude is going alpha-nerd on people ass)

  • One of my favorite jokes of the show ! Lol.

  • cockblock

  • Stuart supports Jason Todd as Batman? And they allow him to run a comic shop??

    For SHAME!!

  • @Telele2 I would stop giving him my business. I would take my business to either Hastings or Mile High.

  • @Telele2  Same guy who doesn't take the hint when Penny invites him in for coffee.

  • @Telele2

    Why, the explanation for that is quite simple... Stuart is one of us. STUART IS A HOODIE! MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

  • @Telele2 not to mention that jason todd became red hood so his arument fro dick not becoming batman because he became batman is moot the only way his argument wouldve proven true is if he suggested tim drake who at the time had not become red robin but in the end dick grayson was the best choice even if nightwing is great

  • @TheEastunder woops i said batman because he became batman meant to say batman because he became nightwing my bad

  • @Telele2 as Robin 

  • Lol my favorite line by Stuart.

  • @KairiPrincessOfHeart I love it because shuts Sheldon down and is an argument Sheldon cannot refute.

  • @KairiPrincessOfHeart I think it's my favorite line on the entire show. Somehow it reminds me of the Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.

  • too late for coffeee LOOOOOOOOOL

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more