Forkers Central

does this qualify as a fork?

DISCUSS.

No. It doesn't.

I had to read Hume last week. I'm reading Kant now, which has a "au" sound instead of an "a" sound, and sounds a lot like a word that it is not. Reading that paper in class wil be fun. These guys would never make it as forkers. They'd still be discussing whether the fork exists when you stabbed them with it.

geeks and philosophers are nice, but even you have your limits, eh?

but then again, what is a fork?

something with multiple prongs used for: the consumption of foodstuffs, or the injury and/or killing of non-intelligent persons.

geeks and philosophers are nice, but even you have your limits, eh?

Don't get me wrong, I like philosophy. It's pretty much all I'm taking this semester - includng one course dedicated to Heidegger, who evidently was a Nazi (!)...

But they're not Forker material. I never heard it refered to as Hume's Fork, anyway.

If we admit that Hume's Fork is a proper fork, we are opening the door to many other non-physical distinctive differentiations.

Just because something has two branches or distinctions does not mean it has tines.

I say: No, not a fork.

If we admit that Hume's Fork is a proper fork, we are opening the door to many other non-physical distinctive differentiations.

they'll be asking for equal marriage and adoption rights next, fucking humosexuals

fucking humosexuals

This amuses me because 100 percent of homosexuals are promiscuous.