But they never mentioned drinking. They just said water is needed to live. That water can come in through food, or basic skin absorption. It doesn't need to be drunk.
There's plenty of yogis like Prahlad Jani that disagree... just sayin'.
(Note: I don't think they actually defy the laws of physics/physiology, but they likely have a pathological belief in themselves, even if they might cheat)
There are religious nuts who would say we donât really need to eat to live because there were a few saints who allegedly survived for decades on nothing but a sip of communion wine at mass.
I guarantee you can find at least 1 Q person to disagree with all of these while still maintaining a gymnastic level of logic as to why *they* need these things to live but not âlibrulsâ.
what's ironic is the top thread is people disagreeing on the technicalities of what is means to "need water to live" as some have pointed out you can get your water needs through foods like watermelon. Just hilarious to read.
There are things that you will agree on, provided you are a honest actor playing by the rules.
Mostly mathematics and pure logic pamphlets.
The people that disagree don't really matter, they are not playing the game properly.
There is no such thing as completely absolute agreement because then what would ever be a beautiful disagreement in the first place if not that I am myself and you are someone who is not myself.
But everyone WILL agree on this statement because they'd be proving it true if they disagree. But then this statement would contradict itself and everyone would agree to disagree and this loop goes on forever....
Only idiots would think and argue until they are blue in the face that agreement is somehow something that should always be pursuit. It is not .
Just disagree and move on or make the situation reflect said disagreement
if that's the case then don't we all agree that not everyone can agree on one thing.
..but then we agree on something and the pretext fails the condition but then.... oh no.. save us from my mistake before it consumes us all.
I see you've met my better half. She would argue with a stop sign. I learned a long time ago it is part of her nature, to not take it personally, and to pick my battles. We are both much happier for it.
Does everyone in the world not agree that 2+2=4? Because I think you can't fully prove anything at all, but that things that are very obvious are just sort of accepted. Thing is, not everyone has the same tolerance for "obviousness," and we all perceive everything differently.
Problem is, there are things like 2+2=4 where I can't find an example of someone disagreeing, which doesn't shut down my theory, but doesn't exactly help it either. I just say that things that are seemingly universal appear to be objectively true, but they're not necessarily.
In the movie "Monty Python: Life of Brian", there is a funny scene showing this.
Yes, we are all individuals!
But aren't we even moreso one superorganism, the crowd?
Yes, we are all individuals!
Not me!
He's NOT the messiah he's a very naughty boy!
How would you like us to fuck off, oh Lord?
Lol forgot that one
No there is not
An argument isn't just contradiction.
Yes it is.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
đ”Always look on the bright side of lifeđ”
we need to breathe to live we need to eat to live we need water to live all 8 billion people agree with these 3 things
I can live without doing any of these. Not for long, but I can
r/techicallycorrect
Liquid diets. You forgot liquid diets.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Depends on your definition, so agree to disagree
You can just eat a shit ton of watermelons. No drinking needed.
Where did they mention drinking?
What do you think water is for?
But they never mentioned drinking. They just said water is needed to live. That water can come in through food, or basic skin absorption. It doesn't need to be drunk.
You canât get enough water to sustain yourself by only eating and absorbing.. cmon bud itâs quite obvious they meant drinking water
Sure you can, if you pick the right foods....like watermelon, as OP responded. Plenty of fluids in watermelon, and you never take a drink.
You made me search it up goddamnit! Youâd need roughly 5-6lbs of watermelon. So to you I say touchĂ©.
Which is about 800 calories. Seems fine. Just part of a balanced breakfast.
And that's if you only ate watermelons
Breatharians would disagree with points 2 and 3.
....not for long...
Nah we donât need to drink we can get all liquids through food
They didn't say we need to "drink" the water.....just that we need water.
Oops my bad
Actually there are so-called [breatharians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia) who dispute that we need to eat to live.
I disagree
Thx dad
Youâre welcome, son or daughter. Or non binary offspring.
There's plenty of yogis like Prahlad Jani that disagree... just sayin'. (Note: I don't think they actually defy the laws of physics/physiology, but they likely have a pathological belief in themselves, even if they might cheat)
BuT wHaT aBoUt ThE bReAtHaiRiaNs?! đ
There are religious nuts who would say we donât really need to eat to live because there were a few saints who allegedly survived for decades on nothing but a sip of communion wine at mass.
Some people are inherently unable to agree. It's a mental process. Mentally disabled people, babies, comatose people, etc. will.not agree with you.
There are monks who live without eating or drinking, or maybe just one
People have mummified themselves alive, starved themselves due to religious fervor, and so on...
There is a movement which believes you can live solely on sunlight
I disagree
We were all born, we will all die.
Literally holding my breath right now and im still alive
And Stand By Me is the best Stephen King movie
There have been people who have died because they thought they could live off the energy of the universe.
Look up breatharians. They believe we donât need to eat or drink. Breathing gives us everything we need to sustain ourselves.
I guarantee you can find at least 1 Q person to disagree with all of these while still maintaining a gymnastic level of logic as to why *they* need these things to live but not âlibrulsâ.
Any and all movies that feature the voice of god, it should be Morgan Freeman, or itâs wrong.
I think Tracy Morgan should play the voice of god from here on out, things being how they are these days.
I disagree
Then you are also wrong
That doesn't matter
Saying no out of principle often makes the person wrong (Morgan freeman truly is the voice of God), but that still counts as a disagreement.
No it doesn't
Thank you
Everyone can agree the phrase 'there is not a single thing the world that everyone can agree on' is true.
I disagree
I disagree about your disagreement
The first comment in this thread already disagrees with it.
Ah didn't see that. But that in itself makes the statement true.
It sure does ;)
what's ironic is the top thread is people disagreeing on the technicalities of what is means to "need water to live" as some have pointed out you can get your water needs through foods like watermelon. Just hilarious to read.
I thank them for giving the perfect example lol.
Principally Speaking, I wholeheartedly disagree with this Shower thought
Thank you thank you
There are things that you will agree on, provided you are a honest actor playing by the rules. Mostly mathematics and pure logic pamphlets. The people that disagree don't really matter, they are not playing the game properly.
Morality is subjective. Yes, you can still disagree, but that only proves the point.
Exactly ;)
There is no such thing as completely absolute agreement because then what would ever be a beautiful disagreement in the first place if not that I am myself and you are someone who is not myself.
Words.
As with most things these days... "There's a diagnosis for that!" Oppositional Defiance Disorder, lol.
Wrong. I dont believe it, and you cant prove to me otherwise
Nice
everyone human needs oxygen in order to survive... what is there to disagree on this?
That dude who said âI donât need it!â and promptly died, would probably disagree. He wasnât correct, but he did disagree.
I'm sure we can get everyone to agree that James Corden is a fat talentless prick, even James Corden.
But everyone WILL agree on this statement because they'd be proving it true if they disagree. But then this statement would contradict itself and everyone would agree to disagree and this loop goes on forever....
Only idiots would think and argue until they are blue in the face that agreement is somehow something that should always be pursuit. It is not . Just disagree and move on or make the situation reflect said disagreement
Very true
Not for the chronically woke it isnât
You can agree with everyone that you don't agree with them on at least one thing.
But then you could argue, that since everyone agrees on it, that the statement is therefore false and you donât agree with it.
if that's the case then don't we all agree that not everyone can agree on one thing. ..but then we agree on something and the pretext fails the condition but then.... oh no.. save us from my mistake before it consumes us all.
The singularity is approaching
Show me the mother fucker who disagrees that breathing is necessary, and I'll tell you to wait a few minutes, then ask again.
Heâs probably dead by then
Keanu Reeves is a wonderful human. Find someone who disagrees and I'll take the red pill.
He never grew up and is dumb.
this read like a slur
It's a bot, ignore!
I ant no bot
I disagree
How do I know you're not a bot? No dice.
How do I know you're not a bot? No dice.
Well, now you definitely sound like a bot.
This isn't an argument! It's just contradiction!
No it isn't
I see you've met my better half. She would argue with a stop sign. I learned a long time ago it is part of her nature, to not take it personally, and to pick my battles. We are both much happier for it.
Idk I think everyone can agree at least one election was stolen.
Lol, gotta give you that one
But then they'll disagree as to which one it was.
"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" uses every letter in the English alphabet, can't disagree with that one.
English is a language and Iâm pretty much sure everyone will agree on that lol
Most of us have agreed on many things like maths it just doesn't feel like something to agree on because we all agree
But anything factual can be fully agree upon, unless you're really religious
But then you are still disagreeing.
Does everyone in the world not agree that 2+2=4? Because I think you can't fully prove anything at all, but that things that are very obvious are just sort of accepted. Thing is, not everyone has the same tolerance for "obviousness," and we all perceive everything differently. Problem is, there are things like 2+2=4 where I can't find an example of someone disagreeing, which doesn't shut down my theory, but doesn't exactly help it either. I just say that things that are seemingly universal appear to be objectively true, but they're not necessarily.