Did you understand the work for no pay poll?

[pattylou]

Did you understand the "work for no pay" poll?

Russ is saying you didn't understand what I was asking. I think some of you didn't, but most of you did.

So did you? Private poll, answer yes or no.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't understand this poll. I voted yes because I thought by "Private poll, answer yes or no" you were asking whether or not this was a private poll but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps more options are required, such as "What?" and "Oh no!" and "Mmmmm, tastes like mince". Have another poll and find out.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'll say that I more or less understood.

 

[cronxeh]

I understand and I agree. I further suggested some social structure ideas which I think would've benefited the humanity and the individual and greatly improved our societies

 

[mattmns]

That poll looked a little too serious to be in gd, so I refrained from posting

 

[zoobyshoe]

That poll looked a little too serious to be in gd, so I refrained from posting

I think it's bad GD is synonymous with levity. When I first joined it used to be primarily serious threads, on non-science topics of course. I hope people realize GD isn't supposed to be the "humor" or "junk" forum, despite the frequent appearance of being that. I would hope serious threads don't end up seeming out of place here.

 

[loseyourname]

I understood what you were asking about, but I was participating in the P&WA thread that you were tangenting off from. <- Look ma, I invented a verb!

 

[Evo]

It wasn't that clear to me because you had this for the poll title: What community-oriented work would you do for no pay?

I was in a hurry and responded based on that and thought it was about volunteer work.

I tend to think if people here realized they no longer had to work to support themselves and could devote themselves to learning more about what they love...physics, math, etc... that they would do that. Isn't that what scientists want, to get grants that allow them to pursue their interests in science and not have to earn a living? I have a problem seeing all of the bright young minds here throwing away their scientific pursuits to do manual labor instead. But, if they say they'd rather do menial labor, then I guess I'm wrong.

 

[cronxeh]

It wasn't that clear to me because you had this for the poll title: What community-oriented work would you do for no pay?
I was in a hurry and responded based on that and thought it was about volunteer work.
I tend to think if people here realized they no longer had to work to support themselves and could devote themselves to learning more about what they love...physics, math, etc... that they would do that. Isn't that what scientists want, to get grants that allow them to pursue their interests in science and not have to earn a living? I have a problem seeing all of the bright young minds here throwing away their scientific pursuits to do manual labor instead. But, if they say they'd rather do menial labor, then I guess I'm wrong.

Hey now that's where you are wrong

By farming you will obviously be conducting a scientific task with myriad of advanced concepts and tools. I don't think you'd just grow the plants, you would also perhaps conduct certain chemical engineering on them, isolating compounds of interest and processing them. Farming of the future is where its at

 

[pattylou]

The specific contention that prompted the poll was something like:

"People won't work if the state provides for their needs."

(leaving aside for the moment that the state can only provide for needs if the society is contributing in some fashion) I disagree with the contention. I think most people will work (even if there is no monetary compensation) because they enjoy working and/or contributing.

Some people wouldn't work. We see that even in a capitalist society.

I hope there'd still be room for science in any society.

 

[pattylou]

I mean, most of us choose to have kids. That's certainly (a) work (b) no pay (c) a contribution to society... (d) counterintuitive...

I think people would rather feel productive than like bumps on a log.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hey now that's where you are wrong
By farming you will obviously be conducting a scientific task with myriad of advanced concepts and tools. I don't think you'd just grow the plants, you would also perhaps conduct certain chemical engineering on them, isolating compounds of interest and processing them. Farming of the future is where its at

I can see where several of teh options in the poll could afford some opertunity for research and experimentation but not really quite as emersed as many scientists would probably prefer.
Nikola Tesla spent days on end with little to no sleep just tinkering and experimenting. He also spent a fortune and used vast quantities of energy in the process with little viable use for his work at that time when all was said and done. In the described society I'm quite sure Tesla would have been rather constrained in his persuits, especially after blacking out parts of the energy grid a time too often. "Sorry old boy, no playing with the electrical outlets for you any more."

 

[loseyourname]

I mean, most of us choose to have kids. That's certainly (a) work (b) no pay (c) a contribution to society... (d) counterintuitive...
I think people would rather feel productive than like bumps on a log.

Come on, patty. As a biologist, you know as well as anyone that the drive to reproduce is one of the fundamental motivating forces behind all life. There is nothing counterintuitive about people having kids.

 

[Smurf]

Hey now that's where you are wrong
By farming you will obviously be conducting a scientific task with myriad of advanced concepts and tools. I don't think you'd just grow the plants, you would also perhaps conduct certain chemical engineering on them, isolating compounds of interest and processing them. Farming of the future is where its at

I don't think experimenting on the food supply counts as "community-oriented work"

 

[Gokul43201]

Patty, can you guess what a poll in the old TD forum asking "do you understand physics ?" would have yielded ?

It makes little sense to ask people if they understood something without telling them what they were supposed to have understood.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think it's bad GD is synonymous with levity. When I first joined it used to be primarily serious threads, on non-science topics of course. I hope people realize GD isn't supposed to be the "humor" or "junk" forum, despite the frequent appearance of being that. I would hope serious threads don't end up seeming out of place here.

Since I've been here (April this year) GD has seemed primarily about silliness, which suits me down to the ground. However, it would be a shame if other people are losing out because of it. Is the serious aspect of GD covered by the subforums, do you think? If not, perhaps a 'PF gay banter' subforum could be created to contain the less serious discussions?

 

[pattylou]

Patty, can you guess what a poll in the old TD forum asking "do you understand physics ?" would have yielded ?

It makes little sense to ask people if they understood something without telling them what they were supposed to have understood.

It seems I can't win, can I?

Russ said that I phrased things in a confusing way, and suggested how to fix it. I disagreed. To ask who was right, I posted this poll. If even half the respondents said that they had been confused, then I would acknowledge that people were more confused than I realized, as Russ seemed to fear. I kept this poll short - because, you know, I didn't want to 'confuse' anyone (and the guidelines on the poll form say to keep things brief.)

So now you're saying that this poll is too confusing. Are you just trying to wind me up?

Do you *really* think that the original poll was as complex a thing to understand as Physics?

Do you really think most people didn't understand the concept? Don't you think most people are a *little* more capable than that?

Here's a fun activity. Below are some of the people from the first poll. Now, you tell me, which of these people are so dense that they failed to understand both the first and the second poll? (Or is this concept too complex for you? I happen to think you're bright enough to understand the point.)

Alpha, Astronuc, cronxeh, Evo, hypatia, Knavish, laminatedevildoll, loseyourname, pattylou, Smurf, Andy, BobG, cefarix, Danger, eax, Gale, Smasherman, SpaceTiger, TheStatutoryApe, vanesch, yomamma, 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, hypatia, Mk, Pengwuino, Zantra

 

[cronxeh]

Mmmm... dense

 

[BobG]

No, I would not work for no pay.

(Please, please, be the right answer. I don't want to be the answer to pattylou's last question. )

Okay, actually, I thought the first poll was about what community service you would do in your spare time - in addition to your normal job, in other words.

(Had I answered this poll before reading the posts, I would have answered yes.)

 

[russ_watters]

You tend to ask questions with preferred answers, patty - such as this one, as Gokul pointed out. But that isn't the only flaw in that poll. More:

(a) Obviously there is a need to work in any situation where people hope to live. We need to eat and have shelter. Question 'a' is senseless.

Yes, exactly! That's one of the fundamental flaws in any system where you are not rewarded for performance. I call it the "death spiral of medicrity". Such systems eventually fail (ie, the USSR) because they breed mediocrity. I visited Lithuania with the Navy a few years ago and you can practically taste it. As we pulled into the shipyard, one look at the rows and rows of rusting cranes and abandoned ships and I said, "yep, that's what I'd have expected from communism".

(b) There is no stratification of wealth in this scenario, and so your question 'b' is the same as my poll.

Yes, I know - but it sounds a lot less enticing the way I put it, doesn't it? You and Smurf both just assume that such a system will work and you tried to imply that people who don't work within the system are lazy. Well the USSR did not work and it wasn't because Russians are lazy, its because a system where you are not rewarded for individuality and performance crushes your spirit and does not work. You're the one pursuing the contradiction, not me.

The way you asked the question assumes the existence (or potential existence) of a fantasy world.

(c) I fail to understand how you cannot draw conclusions based on the way the question was framed.

Maybe I emphasized the wrong word there. What I said was: the conclusions you drew cannot be drawn from your poll. You set up the poll question in a way that ensured that you'd get the answers you were looking for and as a result, the conclusion you drew is meaningless.

There are, however, some conclusions that can be drawn from it. Most importantly, you'll notice that people said they'd do things that make them happy or feel good. Not a lot of people will choose to be sewer cleaners, or janitors, or fast-food workers, or mindless office drones. That highlights one of the major flaws in the system you envision: people will not do the work that sucks but still needs to be done unless you force them to.

But it gets worse: in a system where you have a chocie, you can be happy being a janitor because of the knowledge that you have some level of control over your situation. A system that does not reward performance crushes the spirit of the brain surgeon who makes $8 an hour because he isn't being rewarded for his skills and it crushes the spirit of the garbage truck driver because he's being forced to be a garbage truck driver and there is nothing he can do about it.

It is no coincidence that the USSR had one of the highest rates of alcoholism in the world. But that isn't the cause of the medicrity, it's just one more effect of a system where people know they will not be rewarded for performance.

 

[pattylou]

I don't think your position is completely wrong, and I don't think mine is completely wrong. (I think I'm more right than you but now I'm splitting hairs.)

I do think people understood the poll. (It would seem that over 80% of them understood the poll.)

So, which of the people on the list do you think didn't understand *this* poll?

You, Townsend, Smurf, I, and everyone else on that capitalism thread *agree* that pure systems are flawed. No one here is so stupid as to think that a pure socioeconomic system is flawless. On the other hand, specific *absolute* contentions that are made - like the contention that *no one* would be a janitor - are trivial to test. I clean house daily. I occasionally enjoy it. Just how many janitors do we need? We need far more farmers, and the numbers on the poll indicate that we'd have that. The contention that I was interested in testing, was "No one would work if they didn't have to." Period. That was the contention, and it's wrong. People work for enjoyment. Period.

I never said money does not allow some people to work at jobs that they wouldn't choose otherwise. I never even said we should do away with capitalism. I siomply took issue with the idea that people are lazy and won't work if they don't have to. There is really nothing in that - nothing - that should spark an argument between us. You seem to think I am arguing for an idyllic commune, when I am merely making the point that *of course* people will work for pleasure.

I am content with the results of the polls I posted. If you'd like to put one up, perhaps addressing whether the results on these polls are misleading, go for it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ said that I phrased things in a confusing way, and suggested how to fix it. I disagreed. To ask who was right, I posted this poll. If even half the respondents said that they had been confused, then I would acknowledge that people were more confused than I realized, as Russ seemed to fear. I kept this poll short - because, you know, I didn't want to 'confuse' anyone (and the guidelines on the poll form say to keep things brief.)
So now you're saying that this poll is too confusing. Are you just trying to wind me up?

Not at all.

1. I didn't ever say that the first poll was hard to understand. It seems, however, that there were a few people that didn't get what that poll was really about - and these were most of the folks who likely were not participants in the Capitalism thread. But this was not a point made by me.

2. I made two points about this poll.

First, if you're trying to find out who understood the other poll, it would help to clarify what was intended by that poll before asking people whether they understood it. How do you know that those respondents that said they understood, did understand ? If there's a statement explaining the other poll, then respondents have something to check their understanding against. It's like asking students to solve a problem and then asking them if they got the correct answer without giving them the solution. I was merely suggesting that it would have helped if you'd provided the solution first.

Second, it appears to me that from the responses of some respondents (eg: Evo, BobG to name a couple), that they were perhaps not talking about what they would do purely for the benefit of the community, but rather, what they would do to satisfy their own spirits.

And as a final word, it's one thing to have people say that they will work for the benefit of the community, and another thing entirely to say that the community benits more from this system that one where people work for their own selfish gains. But this is just an outside comment, as the poll was not intended to address this question.

Having said the above, I believe what comes next is irrelevant, but I'll answer them if you still want me to.

Do you *really* think that the original poll was as complex a thing to understand as Physics?
Do you really think most people didn't understand the concept? Don't you think most people are a *little* more capable than that?
Here's a fun activity. Below are some of the people from the first poll. Now, you tell me, which of these people are so dense that they failed to understand both the first and the second poll? (Or is this concept too complex for you? I happen to think you're bright enough to understand the point.)
Alpha, Astronuc, cronxeh, Evo, hypatia, Knavish, laminatedevildoll, loseyourname, pattylou, Smurf, Andy, BobG, cefarix, Danger, eax, Gale, Smasherman, SpaceTiger, TheStatutoryApe, vanesch, yomamma, 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, hypatia, Mk, Pengwuino, Zantra

 

[Gokul43201]

That's one of the fundamental flaws in any system where you are not rewarded for performance. I call it the "death spiral of medicrity". Such systems eventually fail (ie, the USSR) because they breed mediocrity.

I share this same opinion, but ...

I visited Lithuania with the Navy a few years ago and you can practically taste it. As we pulled into the shipyard, one look at the rows and rows of rusting cranes and abandoned ships and I said, "yep, that's what I'd have expected from communism".

...that's purely anecdotal, and hardly statistically significant to support as broad a statement as you made above.

It is no coincidence that the USSR had one of the highest rates of alcoholism in the world.

Is it ? Is this your opinion or a fact ? It certainly sounds plausible but that's a powerful claim to make without supporting evidence.

I've seen studies that show that alcoholism and drug use in Russia have only increased since it turned capitalist (and this has become a giant headache for the ministry).

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s924602.htm
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7189-9.cfm

 

[Evo]

Now, you tell me, which of these people are so dense that they failed to understand both the first and the second poll?

Alpha, Astronuc, cronxeh, Evo, hypatia, Knavish, laminatedevildoll, loseyourname, pattylou, Smurf, Andy, BobG, cefarix, Danger, eax, Gale, Smasherman, SpaceTiger, TheStatutoryApe, vanesch, yomamma, 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, hypatia, Mk, Pengwuino, Zantra

I misunderstood the first poll But I have the flu, so I am operating on reduced capacity.

Poor pattylou, you are being picked on a bit too much.

 

[pattylou]

Poor pattylou, you are being picked on a bit too much.

'Sokay. (After all, I have data. Muahahaha!)

But thanks! And I hope you're better.

 

[Moonbear]

Patty, what was it that I might have misunderstood? What did you mean by the poll that I might have interpreted differently? How can I answer a question asking if I understood it if I don't have any way to know what you really intended by it?

It was never clear to me in the first place what exactly you were asking. It just asked what I would do for no pay, and I answered based on what I would do with my time if I didn't need to work to earn a living. Sort of the, "if I won the $340 million powerball jackpot, how might I occupy myself and would I quit my current job," scenario.

 

[pattylou]

I am not sure what you might have misunderstood. If you read my initial post on that thread:

On the "what is wrong with capitalism" thread in PWA, some contributors suggest that in a communist/anarchist/socialist/whateverist society, no one would work because they wouldn't need to. The argument says something like: everyone would lie around all day and let the state take care of them.

I'm curious if you would work (ie contribute to the common good) for no pay, if that work was something you enjoyed doing. Would you enjoy building houses if it was just for the sake of providing shelter? Cooking? Cleaning?

...followed by Russ's concern (response 69):

Anyway, the poll, pattylou, is poorly constructed. If you want to know if people would work if they did not have to (or if you didn't get paid), you should ask 'would you work if you did not have to?' or 'what would you do if you did not get paid to work?' in a straightforward yes-or-no way and provide yes or no answers. It appears that the question people are answering is 'if you did not get paid, but still had to work, what would you do?' and the conclusions you drew cannot be gathered from answering that question.

... you'll have the same information I have. I don't understand where the confusion would come in, I think my initial post was succinct and self-explanatory enough and it sounds like you understood it well enough. (Russ may think you didn't, and I'd invite him to feel free to explain if I'm mis-representing anything.)

 

[Moonbear]

So, what's the difference between what you intended and what Russ said? Were you asking what I'd do as a full-time job? I thought you were asking what I'd be willing to volunteer to do. If I didn't have to worry about money because I already had everything I could ever want or need, I'd volunteer to do stuff to keep myself occupied, but I sure as heck wouldn't work a full time job...I work for the money to buy myself the things I enjoy having, if working isn't going to help me get anything I need or want, why would I do it? If you were asking what someone would do as a volunteer, that's totally different than what you'd do for a full-time job. With volunteering, if you change your mind or realize it isn't something you enjoy afterall, you can always leave or be more picky about who you help.

But, if all you're saying is that we don't get paid for our work, but still need to work to survive (a more direct barter system instead of exchanging currency), then it would make sense to work providing the things that are more valued commodities, in which case my answer would have changed quite dramatically...I wouldn't do something just for "fun" but would have chosen something more like farming where I'd always have food on the table and the extra could be used to barter for whatever else I needed. On the other hand, if someone guaranteed I was going to have food on the table no matter what, and working harder than everyone else wouldn't provide me with more than anyone else, I'd be an idiot to choose one of the harder work your knuckles to the bone type jobs, and instead would pick something less back-breaking from the list (assuming I HAD to do something...if I didn't HAVE to work, and everything would be provided, I'd be more interested in pursuing my own hobbies, traveling, etc.)

So, I'm not sure what your intent was. I don't read that deeply into polls in GD I'm afraid, at least not until someone brings into question whether there was a flaw in the poll, and now I see there are many ways to interpret it, so there's a good chance I did misinterpret it.

 

[Smurf]

You, Townsend, Smurf, I, and everyone else on that capitalism thread *agree* that pure systems are flawed.

What? You mean *all* pure systems? No, I just don't like capitalism. Pure systems are fine.

 

[loseyourname]

Patty, what was it that I might have misunderstood? What did you mean by the poll that I might have interpreted differently? How can I answer a question asking if I understood it if I don't have any way to know what you really intended by it?
It was never clear to me in the first place what exactly you were asking. It just asked what I would do for no pay, and I answered based on what I would do with my time if I didn't need to work to earn a living. Sort of the, "if I won the $340 million powerball jackpot, how might I occupy myself and would I quit my current job," scenario.

Well, in that scenario things would be a little different. If I won $340 million, I'd probably buy an island and import some supermodels, but in patty's world, I don't think anyone would have money (this could just be smurf's influence after taking over her world, though) and presumably I would not be able to simply annex an entire island.

 

[pattylou]

Pure systems are fine.

No they're not.

Sorry for misrepresenting you.

 

[pattylou]

So, what's the difference between what you intended and what Russ said? Were you asking what I'd do as a full-time job? I thought you were asking what I'd be willing to volunteer to do. If I didn't have to worry about money because I already had everything I could ever want or need, I'd volunteer to do stuff to keep myself occupied, but I sure as heck wouldn't work a full time job...I work for the money to buy myself the things I enjoy having, if working isn't going to help me get anything I need or want, why would I do it? If you were asking what someone would do as a volunteer, that's totally different than what you'd do for a full-time job. With volunteering, if you change your mind or realize it isn't something you enjoy afterall, you can always leave or be more picky about who you help.

But, if all you're saying is that we don't get paid for our work, but still need to work to survive (a more direct barter system instead of exchanging currency), then it would make sense to work providing the things that are more valued commodities, in which case my answer would have changed quite dramatically...I wouldn't do something just for "fun" but would have chosen something more like farming where I'd always have food on the table and the extra could be used to barter for whatever else I needed. On the other hand, if someone guaranteed I was going to have food on the table no matter what, and working harder than everyone else wouldn't provide me with more than anyone else, I'd be an idiot to choose one of the harder work your knuckles to the bone type jobs, and instead would pick something less back-breaking from the list (assuming I HAD to do something...if I didn't HAVE to work, and everything would be provided, I'd be more interested in pursuing my own hobbies, traveling, etc.)

So, I'm not sure what your intent was. I don't read that deeply into polls in GD I'm afraid, at least not until someone brings into question whether there was a flaw in the poll, and now I see there are many ways to interpret it, so there's a good chance I did misinterpret it.

I'll try rephrasing. The basic question is " (1) Are you lazy, or (2) do you do things by choice that benefit others, for no pay?"

I am certainly not qualified to say how *much* work, division of labor, whether people could 'do their own things,' etc etc etc. --- would be required for a communist society.

The question was simply: "Someone has contended that you won't work if you don't have to. Do you agree?"

The very fact that so many of raise children, volunteer, (I'm making dinner tomorrow for a hospice family), work in the classroom at the public schools, etc, tells us that we contribute to society for free.

The question is *not* whether this human trait is, itself, sufficient to sustain a society.

 

[Danger]

I understood it fine, didn't I?

 

[Smurf]

Well if nothing else at least we've established that conservatives can whine with the best of them

 

[Astronuc]

. . . that pure systems are flawed.

Pure systems work - hypothetically. And that is just the problem - they are hypothetical.

Hypothetically, everyone should be good, productive, thoughtful, kind, considerate, honest, intelligent, industrious, . . . . (add the good attribute of your choice).

However, reality is entirely different.


Evo, I am sorry that you have the flu. I hope you get well quickly. Drink plenty of fluids (tea, orange, cranberry juice and chicken soup are good), get plenty of rest, and take ibuprofen or aspirin for fever and aches.

 

[Danger]

Evo, I am sorry that you have the flu. I hope you get well quickly. Drink plenty of fluids (tea, orange, cranberry juice and chicken soup are good), get plenty of rest, and take ibuprofen or aspirin for fever and aches.

And if you get chilly, there's still that nice warm doggie to cuddle up with.

 

[Smurf]

Pure systems work - hypothetically. And that is just the problem - they are hypothetical.

What is a pure system anyways?

 

[pattylou]

(The US is not purely capitalistic. We have welfare, for example. )

A purely communistic system would have certain problems - such as some segment of the population not choosing to work as hard as others, but receiving the same benefits. This can lead to resentment on the parts of the hard workers "Why should I work so hard when my neighbor doesn't but he gets the same benefits as me?" There is also a problem with valuing goods and services. How much food is the construction of a house worth? What if it is worth more to one person than another? Who decides what it is worth? Is it fair to cut your friend a break on cost but not a stranger?

*Some* of these problems are circumvented with currency. You build a house, but building it for food becomes a problem because you need to store the food or maybe you'd rather have some food and some clothing in return for your services or some such. Currency, as a representation of the value of your contribution (building a house) seems like a good solution, because you can then use the currency to buy what you need when you need it. So now we have communism with money. This is a step closer to capitalism.

Pure capitalism runs into other problems. Some people are unable to work for themselves but we need to care for them. Monopolies are a problem. There are other problems with pure capitalism that I am forgetting at the moment, but which are discussed on the thread in PWA.

The basic goal is to have a society where people are happy and healthy and productive (I think that's the goal.) It makes sense that some elements of capitalism, some elements of socialism, and some elements of other systems may all be a part of such a society.

And there'd probably still be problems.

 

[Moonbear]

I'll try rephrasing. The basic question is " (1) Are you lazy, or (2) do you do things by choice that benefit others, for no pay?"

That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there. So, if I'm not altruistic in my activities, I'm lazy? Yes, then I definitely misunderstood your poll.

 

[Smurf]

That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there.

All dichotomies are false.

 

[Gokul43201]

All smurfs are false too !

pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.

PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.

 

[pattylou]

That seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy there. So, if I'm not altruistic in my activities, I'm lazy? Yes, then I definitely misunderstood your poll.

No. I was phrasing it (here) to a ridiculous extreme, because previous efforts to phrase the question in a more realistic manner seemed to fail.

I guess you may well have misunderstood, (how would I really know?) but from what you've written I don't think you did.

 

[pattylou]

All smurfs are false too !

pattylou, at the cost of being repetitive, let me say this : Your option (1) and (2) above are neither (a) exhaustive, nor (b) mutually exclusive.

PS : (a) means that someone who does not satisfy criterion (2) must satisfy criterion (1) and vice versa.
(b) means that someone who satisfies criterion (1) must not satisfy criterion (2) and vice versa.

See immediate post above.

It's just tiresome trying to get everyone on the same line of the same page, particularly when most people seemed to get the general drift of the book overall.

 

[loseyourname]

All dichotomies are false.

You're either S.W.A.T. or you're not.

Okay, pretend I didn't just say that.

 

[Smurf]

Okay, pretend I didn't just say that.

Okay.

 

[Smurf]

All smurfs are false too !

Yeah? Well Gokul's hump hamsters.