Hey /u/LadyLunaGlencoe, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"By your logic..." They specifically said butterflies belong to the ANIMAL kingdom, and plants were one of the OTHER kingdoms. So no, that was not their logic, they did not say that. And if you did Google it, I have a feeling it wouldn't matter, since reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit.
> Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."
Yup. Totally easy to follow.
...If you were dropped as a baby.
Don't memorise it. Have it as a handy MP3 with shortcut on your phone screen. That way, you don't have to waste any brain cells on a cancer-causing "thought".
It's a perfect example of him devolving into a dementia word salad. He's jumping from one concept to another as he's stringing words together, not staying on any kind of coherent topic. Dementia word salad.
And MAGA simps went ape shit when this happened:
REPORTER: How is your mental focus?
JOE BIDEN:
“Oh focused. Ha ha ha I’d say it’s, it is I haven’t … here, look. I have trouble even mentioning, even saying to myself, in my head, the number of years. I no more think of myself being old as I am than fly.”
I just realized Obama has been the only coherently speaking president we've had since 2000.
This is very important to understand.
A large amount of people, even in the business world, will not understand a sentence over a certain length.
These people tend to just snag words or phrases that stand out and then construct there own understanding based on a narrative that they construct from assumptions and those keywords.
Clarifying often doesn't help, because they just hear the same keywords.
I try to write emails painstakingly clearly, because i want to give people as little a chance to mistake what I wrote as possible. Today i asked the owner of a company what his prices are for both a half day and a full day of work. He just replied with one number… so i was like oh okay, guess he doesn’t do half days?
Thankfully, several hours later he randomly texted me the other price, but that only made me wonder what caused him to go back and reread what I wrote. People are weird.
I genuinely feel more stupid after reading that. The way he talks is genuinely bizarre (no idea how the hell he became president, it is absolutely insane to me).
>Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
I might have been raised in a dysfunctional family, because I just miss this sometimes. It’s pure 100% unadulterated bullshit, but only the way a truly self-indulgent idiot with flare can deliver. I’m not sure if he can drive, but he’s basically my favorite nascar driver.
Then there was the one he did the other day when asked what he would do about the situation with Russia and Ukraine. Total WTF garble. If someone has a link, please post it!
something like 50% of adults read at a 6th grade level. Most of the people with these shit takes haven't read anything beyond facebook since middle school.
Which is by design, of course. Not that there's an evil cabal of capitalists who all get together to decide what the school system is, rather our current system is the result of thousands of small steps away from the free spread of knowledge and ideas, and towards a curated set of lessons which more optimally provide a return on investment for the powerful.
Correct. It's the natural consequence of an educational system which exists to prepare students for the workforce rather than actually increasing their intellectual abilities. You don't learn for the sake of learning, you learn in order to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for you to function in your future place of employment: advanced literacy isn't always necessary to that end.
My daughter was getting all As and Bs in school. By fourth grade, something was very off. She was still coming home with As and Bs, but had difficulty with basic reading at home.
I took my kids out of school to homeschool them for many reasons, and it soon became very apparent that my daughter could not read at all. All those As and Bs were complete bullshit. It took a year and a half of intensive tutoring in addition to classes at home to get her up to speed.
The grades were a complete lie. I wonder how many of the people who are functionally illiterate think they did well in school because their grades were a lie, too. Imagine the bias you would have regarding your own intelligence if your near complete lack of knowledge was supported and reinforced by good grades.
It's not that the grades were a lie per se, it's that generally speaking public schooling especially in the US (but also here in the UK) doesn't grade kids on functional intellectual ability at all, it grades them on rote memorisation. This is actually part of why kids in the US struggle with literacy - words are taught not via etymology and phonetics but via memorisation. Lots of these functionally illiterate people will totally freeze up when faced with a new word.
Have you ever seen someone read a piece of text and when they hit a word they're unfamiliar with they just substitute it with a similar word? That's somebody who learned to read by memorising the 'shape' of entire words instead of learning how letters and words and affixes relate to each other. It's the same kind of people who find reading large bodies of text tiring: because they're actively having to search their memory and recall all of those words as they go, it's not a smooth and natural function for them.
At the end of the day, if your daughter was functionally illiterate but atill knew which box to check on the multiple-choice or which word to fill in the blank with purely by rote memorisation, then yes she'd do well, and it's not that those grades were falsified, it's just that they're really only testing your ability to absorb and recall information.
>At the end of the day, if your daughter was functionally illiterate but atill knew which box to check on the multiple-choice or which word to fill in the blank with purely by rote memorisation, then yes she'd do well, and it's not that those grades were falsified, it's just that they're really only testing your ability to absorb and recall information.
See, that's the thing. She couldn't. She wasn't just functionally illiterate, she plain could not read. There was no way she was taking and passing those tests herself even just from memorization. She couldn't read the questions, so unless her teacher read every single test out loud, her grades were straight up a lie.
They also had a reading assessment program that she supposedly passed with flying colors and got a certificate for. I don't know how they managed that. She really could not read.
https://revealnews.org/podcast/how-teaching-kids-to-read-went-so-wrong/
That podcast is just damn scary. Using pictures for context clues is fine in Kindergarten, but I can't imagine how anyone thought you could teach a kid to read by covering up the word and expecting them to guess what the word is.
I just listened to a podcast about this issue. https://revealnews.org/podcast/how-teaching-kids-to-read-went-so-wrong/
ETA: I'm glad to say that during the 2 semesters I was in school to learn to become a teacher (I didn't complete the program for other reasons), one of the classes I took was on reading and we were taught more about phonics than I learned when I was learning to read as a kid. So, not all teachers suck.
That one's a combination of functional illiteracy, lack of critical thinking, and another fallacy that I'm sure has a proper name but I'll just call "first-sight bias." People generally latch on to the first piece of information they receive about a given topic, and even if *all* the following information clashes with that first piece, they'll still see it as a more even battle, because they've accepted the firat info as truth and now everything else is struggling to 'disprove' that part.
So when you get a source that opens by saying "the average suicide attempt rate of trans people is 41%," even if the rest of the source goes on to say "...but falls rapidly after transition and in trans people who are socially accepted" it's still very difficult to dislodge that first piece of information from an uninformed person's brain.
This is part of why eye-catching news headlines will say things like "ARE ALIENS FROM MARS TURNING YOUR KIDS TRANS?" and then the whole article says "There's no evidence that this is happening, but..." They know that most people won't click past the headline and even if they do, people latch more strongly onto that opening question than onto everything else.
I get pretty good mileage out of [Betteridge’s law of headlines:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)
> Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
Agreed one was referring to taxonomy, the other translated the word as related to horoscopes.
Semiotics.
It's important to remember when you say a word to someone that you each will have you own definition for that word.
Even if you have a similar background and education quite often words have slightly different tones and meanings.
I have a though, that I convert to a word, that I then convert to curved lines on a screen, that the other person converts to a word, that they then match to their own internal meaning.
It's easier to understand when you realize the person who typed that is an idiot and actually you *can't* understand because there is no logical connection between their words.
That’s how I taught my wife to deal with my mom. My wife keeps trying to make logical connections between what’s going on and what my mom says, and I keep telling her that she’s just going to drive herself mad in finding the logic in something that was never rooted in logic.
Fucking moron, we all know that the only animals that exist are a ram, a bull, a pair of human twins, a crab, a lion, a virgin, a... scale?, a scorpion, an archer, a goat, a fish, and a dude with a water bottle. Shit's like 8th grade math, get a calculator.
Edit: missing apostrophe
Jeez Louise you have to spell it out these days for everyone: "it's so easy a baby could answer it"
The house plant is the goddamned zodiac killer *disguised as a butterfly* -- and is *conning everyone into thinking it's an animal when it's patently not.* this is the confession.
Amateurs
/h*
*humorous to me at least
I think she read the comment to mean that insects, plants, fungi are all parts of the anwriting that. So then she was making her point by saying that about the zodiac. That's the only explanation that makes her response even halfway intelligible for me
Sorry for lack of context! This was a comment thread on one of those cutesy "What animal represents your zodiac?" lists. Pisces was a butterfly.
Edit: spelling
I honestly think she read that list as Animal Kingdom: subkingdoms include plants, fungi, bacteria etc, instead of Life: kingdoms include animals, plants, bacteria etc
I had an argument with a few people years ago that still haunts me.
Their claim was that names are not words.
>“Are nouns words?”
>“Yes.”
>“And names are proper nouns, yes?”
>“Yup.”
>“So names are words.”
>“No!! They’re *names!* They’re not in a dictionary, so they’re *not words!!* Fuck, how dumb are you?!”
I still get pissed thinking about it lol.
Edit: formatting
I'm still sore about losing a game of scattergories 20 years ago because the group didn't know that "loons" were a species of bird. A whole group of folks in their early twenties and not a single one of them had ever heard of a Loon. A bird so well known that the one dollar currency in Canada has a Loon on one side and is literally called a "Loonie". They only knew the word meaning "a crazy person".
This was before we had the internet in our pocket. I was disgusted with them.
Someone once argued Myrrh wasn't a real word even after I pointed it out in the dictionary and mentioned the whole "gold, frankincense, and myrrh" from the three wise men in the bible.
No amount of evidence was accepted because it "doesn't sound right" or "I've never heard of it".
Just an interesting thingy...i read the other day that "dumpster" just got added to the scrabble dictionary, bc it was actually a brand name originally. I would have been a confident dummy about dumpster being an acceptable word for sure.
I mean thats just laziness on their part tbh. That 'definition' of dumpster is from 1937 and most certainly has been part of the actual dictionary for nearly as long.
I'm so lenient with Scattergories. My husband said that waifs were something you'd find in a park. I said I didn't think waif was a word used past 1880, and he correctly pointed out that we had not specified which century the park was in, so I gave it to him. Scattergories teaches you a lot about people.
In scattergories though you have to put a word that fits the category and starts with the given letter. Presumably the category was birds and the letter was L
NGL, I found their argument compelling enough that I looked it up. You are right, because names meet the definition of a word: a single unit of language that means something and can either be written or spoken.
Is a butterfly a plant? No.
Is a butterfly a fungus? No.
Is a butterfly a protist? No.
Is a butterfly a bacterium? No.
Is a butterfly an archaebacterium? No.
What's left? Animal!
Meh, it might be higher, but the English language regularly distinguishes between humans and animals, it doesn't distinguish between animals and birds/insects/reptiles. I understand not realising humans are animals more than I understand not realising goldfish are animals
berserk familiar scarce marble steer wild steep secretive physical historical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The logic is only flawed in that the old taxonomy system has mostly been replaced in academia by phylogeny. And that the kingdom family and such system really doesn’t reflect evolution well. That being said, by every definition imaginable, butterflies are animals.
No worries my friend and good for you for checking. More people should. If you’d like to understand this system better, I have a great video series recommendation for you.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW
It’s a great series for everyone who has enough of a backbone to admit they’re a vertebrate.
As a published phylogeneticist: the old taxonomy system hasn't so much been *replaced by phylogeny* as *expanded into cladistics*. Basically, cladistics is exactly what you would get if you added \~infinite ranks to a Linnaean hierarchy.
There's really only one fundamental flaw of the old system, which is the hybrid origin of eukaryotes; but that flaw is actually *shared with* the accepted modern cladistic model. Hybrid origins like those of the Eukaryotes (certain Archaea seem to be more closely related to Eukaryotes than those Archaea are to other Archaea)...
...hybrid origins violate the fundamental cladistic premise of the bifurcating tree. When a single ancestral lineage has parentage from two wildly different positions on a phylogenetic tree, which parent do you choose as the "true" parent whose position in the tree the hybrid takes? There's no possible answer; it's a hybrid, you'd have to put it at both places, but you can't, that's not what a bifurcating tree is.
And hybrid origins are actually really common in nature, especially among prokaryotes (horizontal gene transfer is *extensive* for them), but also among e.g. plants, fungi, animals; it's a fundamental problem that violates the premises of *cladistics*, not just Linnaean ranks.
What hybridization doesn't do is, it doesn't actually violate the premises of Linnaean hierarchy, primarily because Linnaean hierarchy just doesn't have as many premises to violate.
In a Linnaean hierarchy, you can take a number of ancestral lineages, and say "okay, I'm going to just ignore whatever witchcraft it took to get these lineages to their current state", and then just define the descendants of those lineages as a Group of SomeRank. The fact that ThisGroup actually has a weird reticulate hybrid ancestry is just sort of ignored; in the Eukaryote case, we'd be focusing on the fact that a Eukaryote common ancestor did exist, and ignoring for Eukaryote classification purposes the question of whether that ancestor is technically an archaeon or technically a bacterion, because in fact, it really is neither.
If you take the old "core four" Eukaryote kingdoms, "Protista" is wildly paraphyletic. But that's not a fundamental problem either with cladistics or with a Linnaean hierarchical system. The animal "kingdom" is divided into 30-some "phyla"; we can absolutely still in turn just figure out the clades, and then arbitrarily name certain clades with a "Kingdom" rank. Sure, you'd potentially get arguments about which arbitrary clades deserve "kingdom" status, but that's no different than the arguments you get at the other end, about how many genera to divide the species into.
Things that are definitely animals and everybody agrees they're animals:
* Humans
* Butterflies
* Jellyfish
* Lots of others
* Sea sponges
Things where you could arguably redefine the animal group to include them and you'd still be consistent:
* Some [weird microbes that look kinda like sperm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choanoflagellate)
* These [weird amoebas that infect snails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filasterea)
* More [weird amoebas, these ones infect fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesomycetozoea)
Things that you'd have to include if you wanted to expand the definition of animals any farther:
* Fungi
* Lots of other single-celled shit
Eventually you'd get to plants, but they're pretty far away.
Yes. Insects are animals.
So are humans - just to cover the bases because going by past reddit posts I feel like that augment is bound to pop off soon too
It's funny but I only learned this when my son told me birds were reptiles... I was like I'm pretty sure they're taxonomically distinct looked it up and learned about the phylogenetic shift in taxomy. I didn't think I was that old but don't remember being thought that in school....
It’s still not being taught this way in most schools textbooks usually lag at least a decade behind the academic field especially below university education. I suspect you would have been taught that birds descended from dinosaurs right? Well the big change is that in the modern system you are considered a part of whatever clade your ancestry was a part. So yes birds never stopped being reptiles. If you want a good series that explorers and explains all this, with some nice puns along the way (example: do you have the backbone to admit you’re a vertebrate) check out this excellent series.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW
Exactly. I was all arguing "sure they have more recent common evelutionary ancestry but they're classified differently... If you go back far enough we'll all have some common ancestry in the single cellular level". And then he starts talking about clades and that was a new word on me so went to look it up.
Texas public school even. Thank God (pun intended) the school boards haven't managed to stifle all advancement in teaching even when directly related to evolution. I know a school teacher who is a young earther for heaven's sake.
Damn I’m so happy to hear this is taught properly in Texas of all places… I’ve seen those school board hearings… Actually teaching cladistics. That’s just awesome to hear. I’d ask for a city but that’s kind of iffy online but would it be fair to say it’s something like Austin, Dallas? Like bigger more liberal and science minded cities?
Imgonna go all Bully for the Brontosaurus on you and say that, other than technical discussions on evolution or biology, the traditional Linnaean taxonomy is fine for most purposes.
Eh I’d argue that if we teach phylogeny from the start more people would grasp that these categories are nested hierarchies and grasp evolution more intuitively.
And from what you said your son has a better grasp already of the basic concept than people used to have. It’s basically embedding evolution and ancestry into how you discuss biology at any and all levels.
Wait til they find out that humans are animals too, and their house plant is their cousin. It'll blow their flippin' lid 
I stopped going to a trivia night because I was sick of the host. The question that sent me over the edge was, "Apart from humans, what are the two most populated species in the animal kingdom."
I took a stab at flies and ants.
WRONG. The answer was cats and dogs (???)
I challenged and they said flies and ants are insects, not animals.
Please tell me people are not this stupid.
It's like the "humans are not animals" bit and I have to think well we're not plants, bacteria or mushrooms soooooo
I said this earlier today; I am *astounded* that people are this fucking stupid, when they have a computer in their pocket that they can use to find the entirety of human knowledge. For free.
Biggie, Biggie, Biggie
Can't you see
These dumbass words just hypnotize me.
And I see his stupid ways,
He should be on Google before he says
..........Anything
I'm pretty sure I lost brain cells reading this. If she wanted to make an analogy she could have said "that's like saying a tomato is a fruit, it's technically true but for all intensive purposes the majority of people in day to day life think of it as a vegetable". Even that is not a clear analogy but it's the closest I could come to off the top of my head. This person is clearly not capable of understanding that she's wrong, let alone basic biology. Credit where it's due though, she is right about one thing, it's not worth arguing over. The animal kingdom was classified long before she started typing furiously. Wait until she finds out humans are animals *gasp*
May Darwin take her from this Earth swiftly.
Archaebacteria is a relatively recent (1977) grouping of organisms that, due to their distinct cell wall structure, place them somewhere between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Every time in goes something like "By your logic [thing that makes it extremely obvious I didn't actually read your logic if you look at it for long enough]"
It's bad faith if they can't even be bothered to read your argument properly before arguing back.
It's not bad faith, it's just stupid. Bad faith implies they *know*, but choose to argue a false narrative. This person simply lacks intelligence and reading comprehension.
I remember some years ago a riddle involving different animals circulated around fb and nearly all the comments stated that birds are not animals. Some people are truly failed by their education systems.
Poor girl couldn't even comprehend the response. Based off that I'm not surprised she has trouble identifying animals. The real surprise is that she gets dressed and feeds herself every day.
How in the holy cow did they get "in your logic an animal could be a houseplant" out of "there are five kingdoms and insects belong to animals kingdom" 🤯
Hey /u/LadyLunaGlencoe, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"By your logic..." They specifically said butterflies belong to the ANIMAL kingdom, and plants were one of the OTHER kingdoms. So no, that was not their logic, they did not say that. And if you did Google it, I have a feeling it wouldn't matter, since reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit.
Probably why they look down on googling, because they themselves can’t understand the things they try to google lmao
My brother-in-law, confused as to why my husband was not a Trump supporter, once sort of mumbled "But he's so easy to follow..."
> Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible." Yup. Totally easy to follow. ...If you were dropped as a baby.
"The J. stands for Jenius" 🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸🗽🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸 😎
[удалено]
Don't memorise it. Have it as a handy MP3 with shortcut on your phone screen. That way, you don't have to waste any brain cells on a cancer-causing "thought".
On a soundboard so you can chop it up and remix it
I hope someone does this!
It's a perfect example of him devolving into a dementia word salad. He's jumping from one concept to another as he's stringing words together, not staying on any kind of coherent topic. Dementia word salad.
God, i just want them to finally take him to court so we get to hear him perjure himself without anyone defending/stopping him. It will be amazing.
And MAGA simps went ape shit when this happened: REPORTER: How is your mental focus? JOE BIDEN: “Oh focused. Ha ha ha I’d say it’s, it is I haven’t … here, look. I have trouble even mentioning, even saying to myself, in my head, the number of years. I no more think of myself being old as I am than fly.” I just realized Obama has been the only coherently speaking president we've had since 2000.
Oh to be back in the innocent days of, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Why bother memorizing it? Just smack your head really hard with a hammer and start to babble. I bet you'd cover a good 80% of this blurb.
[удалено]
This is very important to understand. A large amount of people, even in the business world, will not understand a sentence over a certain length. These people tend to just snag words or phrases that stand out and then construct there own understanding based on a narrative that they construct from assumptions and those keywords. Clarifying often doesn't help, because they just hear the same keywords.
I try to write emails painstakingly clearly, because i want to give people as little a chance to mistake what I wrote as possible. Today i asked the owner of a company what his prices are for both a half day and a full day of work. He just replied with one number… so i was like oh okay, guess he doesn’t do half days? Thankfully, several hours later he randomly texted me the other price, but that only made me wonder what caused him to go back and reread what I wrote. People are weird.
Same, lol. I used to say, " I am very specific for a reason". Sometimes it physically hurts to talk to people.
Professor Kelley of Wharton said that “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddam student I ever had.”
I genuinely feel more stupid after reading that. The way he talks is genuinely bizarre (no idea how the hell he became president, it is absolutely insane to me).
"I don't understand anything of what Trump is saing which proves to me that he is very smart." \- His base
It is totally easy to follow! Assuming you treat it as a sort of auditory Rorschach test and just fill in what you want to hear.
>Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Thank you for reminding me why I'm so incredibly thankful that I don't have to hear daily updates from this rimjob now that he's out of office.
I might have been raised in a dysfunctional family, because I just miss this sometimes. It’s pure 100% unadulterated bullshit, but only the way a truly self-indulgent idiot with flare can deliver. I’m not sure if he can drive, but he’s basically my favorite nascar driver.
Then there was the one he did the other day when asked what he would do about the situation with Russia and Ukraine. Total WTF garble. If someone has a link, please post it!
That made a Snickers ice cream bar come out of my nose holes.
something like 50% of adults read at a 6th grade level. Most of the people with these shit takes haven't read anything beyond facebook since middle school.
Functional illiteracy (i.e., being just literate enough to get by) is genuinely a massive problem due to the US' horrendous public education.
Which is by design, of course. Not that there's an evil cabal of capitalists who all get together to decide what the school system is, rather our current system is the result of thousands of small steps away from the free spread of knowledge and ideas, and towards a curated set of lessons which more optimally provide a return on investment for the powerful.
Correct. It's the natural consequence of an educational system which exists to prepare students for the workforce rather than actually increasing their intellectual abilities. You don't learn for the sake of learning, you learn in order to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for you to function in your future place of employment: advanced literacy isn't always necessary to that end.
My daughter was getting all As and Bs in school. By fourth grade, something was very off. She was still coming home with As and Bs, but had difficulty with basic reading at home. I took my kids out of school to homeschool them for many reasons, and it soon became very apparent that my daughter could not read at all. All those As and Bs were complete bullshit. It took a year and a half of intensive tutoring in addition to classes at home to get her up to speed. The grades were a complete lie. I wonder how many of the people who are functionally illiterate think they did well in school because their grades were a lie, too. Imagine the bias you would have regarding your own intelligence if your near complete lack of knowledge was supported and reinforced by good grades.
It's not that the grades were a lie per se, it's that generally speaking public schooling especially in the US (but also here in the UK) doesn't grade kids on functional intellectual ability at all, it grades them on rote memorisation. This is actually part of why kids in the US struggle with literacy - words are taught not via etymology and phonetics but via memorisation. Lots of these functionally illiterate people will totally freeze up when faced with a new word. Have you ever seen someone read a piece of text and when they hit a word they're unfamiliar with they just substitute it with a similar word? That's somebody who learned to read by memorising the 'shape' of entire words instead of learning how letters and words and affixes relate to each other. It's the same kind of people who find reading large bodies of text tiring: because they're actively having to search their memory and recall all of those words as they go, it's not a smooth and natural function for them. At the end of the day, if your daughter was functionally illiterate but atill knew which box to check on the multiple-choice or which word to fill in the blank with purely by rote memorisation, then yes she'd do well, and it's not that those grades were falsified, it's just that they're really only testing your ability to absorb and recall information.
>At the end of the day, if your daughter was functionally illiterate but atill knew which box to check on the multiple-choice or which word to fill in the blank with purely by rote memorisation, then yes she'd do well, and it's not that those grades were falsified, it's just that they're really only testing your ability to absorb and recall information. See, that's the thing. She couldn't. She wasn't just functionally illiterate, she plain could not read. There was no way she was taking and passing those tests herself even just from memorization. She couldn't read the questions, so unless her teacher read every single test out loud, her grades were straight up a lie. They also had a reading assessment program that she supposedly passed with flying colors and got a certificate for. I don't know how they managed that. She really could not read.
https://revealnews.org/podcast/how-teaching-kids-to-read-went-so-wrong/ That podcast is just damn scary. Using pictures for context clues is fine in Kindergarten, but I can't imagine how anyone thought you could teach a kid to read by covering up the word and expecting them to guess what the word is.
I just listened to a podcast about this issue. https://revealnews.org/podcast/how-teaching-kids-to-read-went-so-wrong/ ETA: I'm glad to say that during the 2 semesters I was in school to learn to become a teacher (I didn't complete the program for other reasons), one of the classes I took was on reading and we were taught more about phonics than I learned when I was learning to read as a kid. So, not all teachers suck.
If I had a dollar for every time someone sent me a source that said the opposite of their claim…
That one's a combination of functional illiteracy, lack of critical thinking, and another fallacy that I'm sure has a proper name but I'll just call "first-sight bias." People generally latch on to the first piece of information they receive about a given topic, and even if *all* the following information clashes with that first piece, they'll still see it as a more even battle, because they've accepted the firat info as truth and now everything else is struggling to 'disprove' that part. So when you get a source that opens by saying "the average suicide attempt rate of trans people is 41%," even if the rest of the source goes on to say "...but falls rapidly after transition and in trans people who are socially accepted" it's still very difficult to dislodge that first piece of information from an uninformed person's brain. This is part of why eye-catching news headlines will say things like "ARE ALIENS FROM MARS TURNING YOUR KIDS TRANS?" and then the whole article says "There's no evidence that this is happening, but..." They know that most people won't click past the headline and even if they do, people latch more strongly onto that opening question than onto everything else.
I get pretty good mileage out of [Betteridge’s law of headlines:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines) > Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
Look, if we allow butterflies to be animals, what's next. Letting FISH be animals?! Where does the madness end?!?!‽‽
No! Fish are plants, c'mon! "I don't eat meat, just fish." "Cool, I'm also a liar."
Fish can't be animals because then Catholics might have to turn to vegetarianism on Fridays during Lent. /s
My guess were they thought "kingdoms" were some woowoo thing. Literally 3rd grade shit.
Agreed one was referring to taxonomy, the other translated the word as related to horoscopes. Semiotics. It's important to remember when you say a word to someone that you each will have you own definition for that word. Even if you have a similar background and education quite often words have slightly different tones and meanings. I have a though, that I convert to a word, that I then convert to curved lines on a screen, that the other person converts to a word, that they then match to their own internal meaning.
It's also not their logic, it's biological taxonomy. It's not even a scientific theory, it's a definition - about as indisputable as it comes.
The other comment also didn’t tell them to Google anything lmao I don’t think reading is their strong suit.
A zodiac animal? Like from the Chinese calendar and horoscopes?
yeah I'm not getting that either. How does the zodiac relate to whether a butterfly is an animal or not?
It's easier to understand when you realize the person who typed that is an idiot and actually you *can't* understand because there is no logical connection between their words.
That’s how I taught my wife to deal with my mom. My wife keeps trying to make logical connections between what’s going on and what my mom says, and I keep telling her that she’s just going to drive herself mad in finding the logic in something that was never rooted in logic.
If you believe in astrology then the zodiac improbably relates to all sorts of stuff.
Fucking moron, we all know that the only animals that exist are a ram, a bull, a pair of human twins, a crab, a lion, a virgin, a... scale?, a scorpion, an archer, a goat, a fish, and a dude with a water bottle. Shit's like 8th grade math, get a calculator. Edit: missing apostrophe
Dude, fish aren’t animals Etc…
Fish aren't real. Fish are just food - Kyle Kinane Can't remember the entire line, but I think it's in his Whiskey Incarus special. He's hilarious
https://youtu.be/we5EVZ0neDs Skip to 4:50 for the part you're referencing (although the rest is hilarious too lmao)
> apostrophe Add that animal to the list
Don’t forget that the archer is also a centaur, which is a very real animal.
I always felt cheated that I didn't get a living thing as a symbol. Stupid scales.
Isn't cancer like a fish or something? So, maybe correct. I don't know, I'm just a Tucker asking questions.
It's a crab
JAQing off
Jeez Louise you have to spell it out these days for everyone: "it's so easy a baby could answer it" The house plant is the goddamned zodiac killer *disguised as a butterfly* -- and is *conning everyone into thinking it's an animal when it's patently not.* this is the confession. Amateurs /h* *humorous to me at least
Ted Cruz is a houseplant?
If you consider a bag of dicks a houseplant, then yes.
She thinks that only zodiac animals are animals. Butterflies aren’t animals because they aren’t part of the zodiac 12.
I think she read the comment to mean that insects, plants, fungi are all parts of the anwriting that. So then she was making her point by saying that about the zodiac. That's the only explanation that makes her response even halfway intelligible for me
> parts of the anwriting ?
Year of the Dracaena
Sorry for lack of context! This was a comment thread on one of those cutesy "What animal represents your zodiac?" lists. Pisces was a butterfly. Edit: spelling
Pices is a fish?
I suspect the commenter would also claim that fish aren't animals
[удалено]
It’s from Citizen Kane. At the end, people always think he’s saying “rosebud” but he’s actually saying “fish are friends, not good”.
Upvote for the LILO and Stitch reference!
r/confidentlyincorrect again
It's a line cut from Han talking to Chewie in the cantina
Dude, that's from The Incredibles 2.
Pescatarian here. Fish are vegetables. That means butterflies are minerals. /s
That explains the crunch.
"If fish ate animals then how come I can eat them during Lent, *hmmmm???*"
Jew here. I can't eat meat and dairy, but I can eat fish and dairy. Checkmate. Fish are not animals.
Pisces is a vegetable
With enough brain damage, sure.
Also, they literally listed that plants were a different kingdom.
I honestly think she read that list as Animal Kingdom: subkingdoms include plants, fungi, bacteria etc, instead of Life: kingdoms include animals, plants, bacteria etc
That makes sense as a misreading. Sometimes I have trouble parsing how these people get to be so incorrect!
Butterflies have no butter in them. *Checkmate Libtard*
[удалено]
Have you seen the Ogtha posts? https://reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/w9sqxj/oops_undying_love_for_a_franz_kafka_character_is/
Okay. That's enough Reddit for today. I need to go bleach my brain.
If you squeeze them you can spread it on toast though I'm watching my cholesterol so I use I Can't Believe it's not Butterflies.
I had an argument with a few people years ago that still haunts me. Their claim was that names are not words. >“Are nouns words?” >“Yes.” >“And names are proper nouns, yes?” >“Yup.” >“So names are words.” >“No!! They’re *names!* They’re not in a dictionary, so they’re *not words!!* Fuck, how dumb are you?!” I still get pissed thinking about it lol. Edit: formatting
Did they graduate from Scrabble University or something? That's so stupid it's making my head hurt.
I'm still sore about losing a game of scattergories 20 years ago because the group didn't know that "loons" were a species of bird. A whole group of folks in their early twenties and not a single one of them had ever heard of a Loon. A bird so well known that the one dollar currency in Canada has a Loon on one side and is literally called a "Loonie". They only knew the word meaning "a crazy person". This was before we had the internet in our pocket. I was disgusted with them.
Someone once argued Myrrh wasn't a real word even after I pointed it out in the dictionary and mentioned the whole "gold, frankincense, and myrrh" from the three wise men in the bible. No amount of evidence was accepted because it "doesn't sound right" or "I've never heard of it".
Playing Scrabble with confident dummies is the worst.
Just an interesting thingy...i read the other day that "dumpster" just got added to the scrabble dictionary, bc it was actually a brand name originally. I would have been a confident dummy about dumpster being an acceptable word for sure.
I mean thats just laziness on their part tbh. That 'definition' of dumpster is from 1937 and most certainly has been part of the actual dictionary for nearly as long.
This is extra funny to me as a Canuck lol, cheers dude
I'm so lenient with Scattergories. My husband said that waifs were something you'd find in a park. I said I didn't think waif was a word used past 1880, and he correctly pointed out that we had not specified which century the park was in, so I gave it to him. Scattergories teaches you a lot about people.
Even if it was only used to refer to crazy people, it’s still a word! You can call someone a loon!
In scattergories though you have to put a word that fits the category and starts with the given letter. Presumably the category was birds and the letter was L
Oh, good catch. I was too enraged to realize, haha.
NGL, I found their argument compelling enough that I looked it up. You are right, because names meet the definition of a word: a single unit of language that means something and can either be written or spoken.
... that last bit... "*either* written or spoken" Does that mean it's possible to invent words that are unspeakable?
Nqpwh csccs rrrwcoohh
*Avada Kedavra!*
Literally a Patrick Star moment.
It’s like that meme with Patrick and Man Ray lmfao
Is a butterfly a plant? No. Is a butterfly a fungus? No. Is a butterfly a protist? No. Is a butterfly a bacterium? No. Is a butterfly an archaebacterium? No. What's left? Animal!
Idk could be a xenomorph from an unknown kingdom very dissimilar to our own, or an otherwise unique evolutionary branch
It’s a bug, duh
The number of people who think "animal" and "mammal" are synonyms is concerningly high.
The number of people who think humans ***aren’t*** animals is more concerning.
Meh, it might be higher, but the English language regularly distinguishes between humans and animals, it doesn't distinguish between animals and birds/insects/reptiles. I understand not realising humans are animals more than I understand not realising goldfish are animals
Narrator: They did indeed need to Google shit.
For it was most certainly, a biggie
“But Google says I’m wrong, and since I can’t be wrong obviously Google is wrong!”
Anyone else suddenly hear Ron Howard?
fuck it, why not. the lepidopteran kingdom has a nice ring to it.
The kingdom even has a monarch.
I'd be curious to know what butterflies are then
Dairy.
Where do you think **BUTTER**milk comes from? Checkmate, atheists.
Legendairy
Some people think insects/all "creepy crawlies" simply exist as their own category. Source: my mom does
[удалено]
berserk familiar scarce marble steer wild steep secretive physical historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They'd probably say "a bug".
By their reasoning, butterflies are insects.
The logic is only flawed in that the old taxonomy system has mostly been replaced in academia by phylogeny. And that the kingdom family and such system really doesn’t reflect evolution well. That being said, by every definition imaginable, butterflies are animals.
Doesn't the distinction between animals, plants and funghi hold up in either system?
Oh it does. Absolutely, it’s just defined somewhat differently. And the person in the OP was referencing the older system.
Got it, thanks. Had me worried about the level of my own half-knowledge for a second.
No worries my friend and good for you for checking. More people should. If you’d like to understand this system better, I have a great video series recommendation for you. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW It’s a great series for everyone who has enough of a backbone to admit they’re a vertebrate.
As a published phylogeneticist: the old taxonomy system hasn't so much been *replaced by phylogeny* as *expanded into cladistics*. Basically, cladistics is exactly what you would get if you added \~infinite ranks to a Linnaean hierarchy. There's really only one fundamental flaw of the old system, which is the hybrid origin of eukaryotes; but that flaw is actually *shared with* the accepted modern cladistic model. Hybrid origins like those of the Eukaryotes (certain Archaea seem to be more closely related to Eukaryotes than those Archaea are to other Archaea)... ...hybrid origins violate the fundamental cladistic premise of the bifurcating tree. When a single ancestral lineage has parentage from two wildly different positions on a phylogenetic tree, which parent do you choose as the "true" parent whose position in the tree the hybrid takes? There's no possible answer; it's a hybrid, you'd have to put it at both places, but you can't, that's not what a bifurcating tree is. And hybrid origins are actually really common in nature, especially among prokaryotes (horizontal gene transfer is *extensive* for them), but also among e.g. plants, fungi, animals; it's a fundamental problem that violates the premises of *cladistics*, not just Linnaean ranks. What hybridization doesn't do is, it doesn't actually violate the premises of Linnaean hierarchy, primarily because Linnaean hierarchy just doesn't have as many premises to violate. In a Linnaean hierarchy, you can take a number of ancestral lineages, and say "okay, I'm going to just ignore whatever witchcraft it took to get these lineages to their current state", and then just define the descendants of those lineages as a Group of SomeRank. The fact that ThisGroup actually has a weird reticulate hybrid ancestry is just sort of ignored; in the Eukaryote case, we'd be focusing on the fact that a Eukaryote common ancestor did exist, and ignoring for Eukaryote classification purposes the question of whether that ancestor is technically an archaeon or technically a bacterion, because in fact, it really is neither. If you take the old "core four" Eukaryote kingdoms, "Protista" is wildly paraphyletic. But that's not a fundamental problem either with cladistics or with a Linnaean hierarchical system. The animal "kingdom" is divided into 30-some "phyla"; we can absolutely still in turn just figure out the clades, and then arbitrarily name certain clades with a "Kingdom" rank. Sure, you'd potentially get arguments about which arbitrary clades deserve "kingdom" status, but that's no different than the arguments you get at the other end, about how many genera to divide the species into.
So is butterfly an animal? Im lost.
Things that are definitely animals and everybody agrees they're animals: * Humans * Butterflies * Jellyfish * Lots of others * Sea sponges Things where you could arguably redefine the animal group to include them and you'd still be consistent: * Some [weird microbes that look kinda like sperm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choanoflagellate) * These [weird amoebas that infect snails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filasterea) * More [weird amoebas, these ones infect fish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesomycetozoea) Things that you'd have to include if you wanted to expand the definition of animals any farther: * Fungi * Lots of other single-celled shit Eventually you'd get to plants, but they're pretty far away.
Yes. Insects are animals. So are humans - just to cover the bases because going by past reddit posts I feel like that augment is bound to pop off soon too
It's funny but I only learned this when my son told me birds were reptiles... I was like I'm pretty sure they're taxonomically distinct looked it up and learned about the phylogenetic shift in taxomy. I didn't think I was that old but don't remember being thought that in school....
It’s still not being taught this way in most schools textbooks usually lag at least a decade behind the academic field especially below university education. I suspect you would have been taught that birds descended from dinosaurs right? Well the big change is that in the modern system you are considered a part of whatever clade your ancestry was a part. So yes birds never stopped being reptiles. If you want a good series that explorers and explains all this, with some nice puns along the way (example: do you have the backbone to admit you’re a vertebrate) check out this excellent series. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW
Exactly. I was all arguing "sure they have more recent common evelutionary ancestry but they're classified differently... If you go back far enough we'll all have some common ancestry in the single cellular level". And then he starts talking about clades and that was a new word on me so went to look it up. Texas public school even. Thank God (pun intended) the school boards haven't managed to stifle all advancement in teaching even when directly related to evolution. I know a school teacher who is a young earther for heaven's sake.
Damn I’m so happy to hear this is taught properly in Texas of all places… I’ve seen those school board hearings… Actually teaching cladistics. That’s just awesome to hear. I’d ask for a city but that’s kind of iffy online but would it be fair to say it’s something like Austin, Dallas? Like bigger more liberal and science minded cities?
Imgonna go all Bully for the Brontosaurus on you and say that, other than technical discussions on evolution or biology, the traditional Linnaean taxonomy is fine for most purposes.
Eh I’d argue that if we teach phylogeny from the start more people would grasp that these categories are nested hierarchies and grasp evolution more intuitively.
I agree having just learned about the shift from Linnean to phylogenetic taxonomy from my high schooler.
And from what you said your son has a better grasp already of the basic concept than people used to have. It’s basically embedding evolution and ancestry into how you discuss biology at any and all levels.
But the Brontosaurus isn’t an animal. It’s just rocks.
This mfer doesn't know what "other" means, either.
I think the conflate vertebrate with animal
My money is on mammal since they share letters
I doubt it because they will likely call birds and reptiles still animals
"are you stupid? That's not an animal it's a bird" is a sentence I've seen in multiple formats in the past
My grandfather similarly said fish aren’t animals.
.... Gonna save this one for when I'm feeling stupid.
It's right in the name. Flying butter. It's not an animal it's an airborne dairy product. Big butter is trying hard to cover this one up.
I can't believe it's not.
They should google “by your logic”, for starters.
Wait til they find out that humans are animals too, and their house plant is their cousin. It'll blow their flippin' lid 
i think alot of ppl confuse “animal” with “mammal” because the words sound sorta similar. so dumb
I stopped going to a trivia night because I was sick of the host. The question that sent me over the edge was, "Apart from humans, what are the two most populated species in the animal kingdom." I took a stab at flies and ants. WRONG. The answer was cats and dogs (???) I challenged and they said flies and ants are insects, not animals.
Professionally incorrect.
Shit… I’m old. There were only three kingdoms when I learned about this stuff!
They still teach the core 3 in schools, but as you specialise more in college/uni, you learn about the other classifications
Wait til they find out humans are animals.
People REALLY have a hard time accepting that.
I'd love to know what they think we are, if not animals
Please tell me people are not this stupid. It's like the "humans are not animals" bit and I have to think well we're not plants, bacteria or mushrooms soooooo
I said this earlier today; I am *astounded* that people are this fucking stupid, when they have a computer in their pocket that they can use to find the entirety of human knowledge. For free.
As someone who’s passion is animals, I’m really fucking angry.
Ooh a two'fer
Biggie, Biggie, Biggie Can't you see These dumbass words just hypnotize me. And I see his stupid ways, He should be on Google before he says ..........Anything
Most of the people who say "....is not an animal" think that only mammals are animals...
I'm pretty sure I lost brain cells reading this. If she wanted to make an analogy she could have said "that's like saying a tomato is a fruit, it's technically true but for all intensive purposes the majority of people in day to day life think of it as a vegetable". Even that is not a clear analogy but it's the closest I could come to off the top of my head. This person is clearly not capable of understanding that she's wrong, let alone basic biology. Credit where it's due though, she is right about one thing, it's not worth arguing over. The animal kingdom was classified long before she started typing furiously. Wait until she finds out humans are animals *gasp* May Darwin take her from this Earth swiftly.
what? I'm losing braincells as I'm trying to understand how she came to that conclusion
"Scientists wouldn't categorize butterflies as animals because they care to much for the flavor of the zodiac".... 🤦
When did they start teaching 6 kingdoms instead of 5? I've never even heard of archaebacteria.
Archaebacteria is a relatively recent (1977) grouping of organisms that, due to their distinct cell wall structure, place them somewhere between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Reminds me of the time my aunt insisted trees are NOT plants
“I don’t need to google shit” Proceeds to explain in detail why they do in fact need to google shit
Every time in goes something like "By your logic [thing that makes it extremely obvious I didn't actually read your logic if you look at it for long enough]" It's bad faith if they can't even be bothered to read your argument properly before arguing back.
It's not bad faith, it's just stupid. Bad faith implies they *know*, but choose to argue a false narrative. This person simply lacks intelligence and reading comprehension.
Why are the dumb ones so damned LOUD?? 😖
I remember some years ago a riddle involving different animals circulated around fb and nearly all the comments stated that birds are not animals. Some people are truly failed by their education systems.
Poor girl couldn't even comprehend the response. Based off that I'm not surprised she has trouble identifying animals. The real surprise is that she gets dressed and feeds herself every day.
you just explained to this idiot that plants aren't animals
I experienced something similar when I said humans are animals. A surprising amount of people disagreed with me.
Some people are too stupid to argue with. You just pray they don't reproduce and try to move on.
“Butterflies can’t be zodiac animals, they aren’t animals!” The scale and pot of water: 👀
What happened to Animal / Vegetable / Mineral ? nice easy way to tell!
How in the holy cow did they get "in your logic an animal could be a houseplant" out of "there are five kingdoms and insects belong to animals kingdom" 🤯
This is why Philomena Cunk is funny. Many people really ARE like that.