"An unstoppable force would destroy an immovable object" should be rewritten as "An unstoppable force that was incapable of going any direction but through an object that was immovable but destructible, would destroy the object."
By
Jawn Lam
on February 15, 2007
This is a claim from Ben Breedlove. Please see comments at: http://jyte.com/cl/an-unstoppable-force-would-destroy-an-immovable-object
5
23
17.9% 82.1%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 37-17 An unstoppable force would destroy an immovable object.
- 23-49 The chicken came before the egg.
- 54-4 The term "the store" does not need to directly refer to "the super market."
- 110-13 On Jyte, I vote on such deeply serious claims and such terribly silly claims in quick succession that I can hear my brain grinding as it shifts gears.
- 36-3 Silliness is a very serious matter
Discussion (3)
It's an entirely different claim. The first claim, if discussed, provides insight into how people think. The revised claim seems more like an over definition of terms, in order to get a specific response. In my eyes, this would be suboptimal.
Strip the "but destructible" and you're onto something.
Yeah, where does "destructible" come from? Also, what mass is being moved by the force?