Xenophon reports "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."
It's just very fast English. Only 'asked,' 'what's,' and 'getting' show significant shifts in dialect. I'll translate:
"I asked her what's her problem because I had some on, and she told me I could[correction] I'm still not getting in because I didn't have any undergarments on."
Design on a fundamental level, is connected with the attempt to produce the "right effect" either sensually or otherwise. Your first example is certainly the sort of thing we would only be willing to attribute to design while your second is an object of design (engaged in by the Pringles factory daily). In addition, I never claimed that we are actually seeing design. No, we never see the property of design itself. I claimed that we experience the appearance of design whose truth is contingent upon a designer and- if it is to be anything more than a contingent product of human judgment -must be proven aside from the appearance.
The judgment that something is beautiful is nothing but the claim that something appears designed though it may lack practical function. This appearance of design and unity in nature brings us to reject chance as a possible cause and we infer that there is a unified, perfect, mighty, wise, and self-sufficient Being behind that beauty. This may give us hope, but it cannot prove with certainty the existence of such a being. For that, we require a necessary being with all-embracing reality, which in turn must be shown necessarily exist.
The jokes themselves were not particularly witty.
'The gentleman is fat so he's never going to get a salad' is hardly sidesplitting. 'He's Catholic so he's never going to get a condom' fails to enter into the realm of humor at anytime.
It's as if you find using pictures instead of words funny in and of itself. Pictionary must be a gas for you.
iwpoe's recent comments: