Philosophy - ENDED

“If balls were cheese I wouldn't eat cheese anymore”

Truly a question historians even to this day struggle with

The best way to break down this quote is brute force

The first thing to consider is the definition of balls

1.) a round or roundish body or mass


1.) a spherical or ovoid body used in a game or sport - Unfortunately their is no record of a ball of cheese being utilized for sport

2.) a spherical or conical projectile - There are multiple instances of cheese being used as a projectile, but this can be disregarded as it would not affect ones future consumption of cheese

3.) a roundish protuberant anatomical structure - We will discuss this


2.) Vulgar

1.) Testicles - This may be referring to the testicles emitting the negative aroma of cheese, but this is impossible since all men clean their balls(right?)

2.) Guts/ballsy - Cheese is not an adjective




3.) a roundish protuberant anatomical structure

This truly intrigues me as the first thing that comes to mind when round is mentioned in anatomical structure are none other than the tits

It is common knowledge that milk is produced from the breasts and cheese formed from this milk has proven to be possible
Recipe

This explains the part about the cheese balls, but what about the unwillingness to consume cheese afterwards?

An excellent example is shown by none other than Gordon Ramsey one of the most renowned chefs from around the world
Evidence.exe

Alas, I conclude my case

If I to were to be served balls of cheese, I would be traumatized for years to come

That's gonna be hard to compete with Load image: dizzylmao

The person is saying that if sometime he thought little of was something he thought highly of, he would no longer eat that.

Kind of like an Idiom.

If balls were cheese you could employ mice to perform sterilisation (castration) operations in veterinarian surgery's.

There could also be some methods of coercion used as well.

"Tell us where the loot is or we'll release Mickey"

does the contest end today or next friday

What a weird hill to die on, but a hill nonetheless.

However, your usage of balls being cheese would ruin cheese for you is a hill I'm willing to counter.
i.e: Cheese balls, Cheese ball, Mozarella, etc.

Not to mention, some of the most iconic candies and foods are ball shaped, so to say you would hate cheese if it were a ball, would eliminate much more than cheese from this list.

"if the ballot was satan's ball's I'd stop voting immediately"

(my response tho. no, innocent until proven)

That is a logical deduction of the form p => q.
Being represented in conditional form does not change the structure.

Statement p. Balls are cheese.
Statement q. I will not eat cheese.

p => q is logically equivalent to -q => -p. Converting the original statement to this form makes

If it is not true that I won't eat cheese anymore, then it is not true that balls are cheese.

Simplifying,
If I keep eating cheese, then balls aren't cheese.

And since the first part is obviously true.. there is no power on earth that will stop me from enjoying the three things that make life worth living,.. that is, parmesan, mozzarella, and mascarpone... then the latter part must also be true. Balls aren't cheese. Balls are orbs made of leather and designed for play, whereas cheese comes in many shapes. Q.E.D.

Lets start with sentence structure?

If: condition 1,
then: effect 1

Condition: Balls were cheese
Effect: You wouldn't eat cheese

So Balls = balls, but the first condition made it that balls = cheese, you will not eat cheese(which means balls now).

But since balls are still balls now, then the condition will be put to false(another reason for this is that the verb is were meaning its in subjunctive mood therefore balls are not cheese), so the block(effect) will not occur, so you still will eat cheese(unless another complication makes that false and you woudln't eat cheese)

So now we got the structure right, we need to find the meaning.

Common dirtyness makes you think balls are a dick, so that's the strawmen involved.
Note: nouns only

dictionary:
1. testicles
2. courage or nerve
3. nonsense; rubbish (often said to express strong disagreement).

4. a solid or hollow spherical or egg-shaped object that is kicked, thrown, or hit in a game.
5. a spherical object or mass of material
6.a solid non-explosive missile for a firearm.
8. squeeze or form (something) into a rounded shape.
9. form a round shape.
10. have sex with.


the dictionary dictates that there are many things the person does not enjoy any of these, thus showing his reluctance(also shown in anymore) to eat the cheese(which is balls now if the condition was true)

So, my explanation is this:
1. Person does not like(to eat)any ONE of the things stated in dictionary
2. Person was willing to eat cheese before(unless some other complications/conditions occur)


Tl;dr
person does not want to eat any of the dictionary

BRO you murdered it! Here is what I came up with:

This is what I came up with on my own.

Let's start off with the affirmative: "if balls were cheese." This implies that all balls are cheese, but not necessarily that all cheeses are balls. But, if one were to state that IF balls were cheese, that they are indeed FEARFUL that when EATING cheese, it might be balls. The superlative is therefore an unnecessary statement except for the fact that it states one would NOT eat cheese ever again, even though it was simply a CHANCE that it MIGHT be balls. Therefore, one could surmise the following:

1) The writer does not enjoy eating balls.
2) The writer may or MAY NOT enjoy eating cheese.
3) The sheer chance that cheese may be balls is enough for the writer to stop eating cheese all together.

We can therefore deduct that:

4) The writer does NOT love eating cheese more than anything in the world
5) The writer does NOT hate cheese.
6) The writer is unlikely to take risks.
6a) The writer is likely to have low self-esteem because they cannot ultimately trust themselves to deduce the difference between balls and cheese.
6b) Therefor, the writer is likely to weigh consequences heavily.
7) The writer is likely to assess situations as "black or white", "yes or no".
7a) The writer is likely to have an inflated self-worth, and believes they can simply make a proclamation, live by it, and it be ultimately true.
7a1) Therefore, the writer is likely to cut friendships off and burn bridges.
7a2) Therefore, the writer is unlikely to consider the benefits of patience over the benefits of immediate satisfaction.
7a3) Therefore, the writer is more likely to resort to violence than someone who willingly observes "gray areas".
7b) The writer is likely to have suffered from immeasurable pain, which lead to a "black or white" philosophy of self-protection

You sent a Donator Pack to BlitzCoin with the message: Congratulations, you f**kin' genius!
Close

Ladies and gentlemen, this contest is closed. Blitzcoin is a f**king genius.

Yo what never expected that. Thanks man!

"If balls were cheese, I wouldn't eat cheese anymore."

Assuming the word 'balls' in this sentence refers to human testicles, then not only is this motion correct, not adhering to it would probably be illegal, and is in fact an immoral act.

Throughout history, cannibalism has held a prominent role in a lot of societies. Whether it be eating enemies to absorb their power (exocannibalism) or eating tribesman as part of a death ritual (endocannibalism), ritualistic cannibalism has been with us since pre-history. In most cases, the goal of such an act was to receive some of the dead's good characteristics and traits. We have of course moved away from this act as a species, and now the prominence it holds in our society is as one of the most heinous taboos.

With the discovery of Mendelian inheritance in 1866, and the subsequent founding of genetic theory, we understood that to steal someone's good traits, you had to be directly related to them. This comes with the added benefit of inheriting their cash too, so really is best way to start an account. Within 2 years, opinions on cannibalism the world over had changed, and it was now considered a disgusting and unnecessary practice. And so it was that in 1868, in the city of Torn, the final 'International Cannibalism Cup' was held as a send-off to the cruel and tasty practice.

To bring this back to the motion, if balls were cheese and balls are human flesh, by the transitive property cheese would be human flesh, ergo the act of eating cheese would be the act of cannibalism. Since as a society (and as exemplified above) the act of cannibalism is considered an immoral, disgusting, and illegal act, I can safely and philosophically soundly say that "If balls were cheese, I wouldn't eat cheese anymore.".

Damnit man, this is so good Ima have to send you a dp, too haha. Alas, the contest ended Friday and I’ve already sent it off. I’ll figure something out for you

Wait, I've got it! I've got just the thing!

You sent a Certificate of Lame to Aezur with the message: Philosophy Honorable Mention Prize!
Close

XD It really was a hilarious read though.

Haha no worries. I only half read the post. Didnt even realise there was a prize or a time limit. Just entered for fun.

Thanks for the certificate. I'll use it as my bazaar anchor item so I don't accidentally sell this specific one.

It really was a fantastic read. I'll have another DP Saturday, check out philosophy 2! You're a helluva writer.