{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Bearbeitet von jmann43b:
7/27/2023 7:13:51 PM
8
No shirt, No Shoes, No Service
Am I the only one to think this sign is a bit vague? I've never seen the sign state that I have to be WEARING them; what if I have them with me in a backpack or something? Does that still count?
Also, what if I'm not wearing pants? Again, due to lacking specificity, what if I were to walk into an establishment, had a shirt and shoes in hand, while wearing only my skivvies? Haven't I met the criteria laid out by the posted sign?
I'm all too aware that this is a stupid post, but it's late where I'm at and someone made a reference to the sign in the Destiny forum, so this is what my brain spewed forth. Should anyone bother to read this rubbish, I'm curious to know your thoughts even if it's to tell me this post is stupid.
Edit: I feel as though some people are taking this post far too seriously; I intended as a joke, but also to point out one of the many ambiguities in word usage we see every day.
English
#Offtopic
-
1 AntwortenI always thought the omission of pants from that list seemed odd. Would be funny to walk into a place like that with ONLY a shirt and shoes on. No pants, no socks, not even underwear.
-
Bearbeitet von pValue2010: 7/28/2023 12:17:14 PMIt’s an if-then statement, reduced for simplicity sake. If you are not wearing shoes and shirt, then you don’t get service. [b][i][u]If not p, then not q.[/u][/i][/b] This is not equivalent to If p, then q. That is to say, logically speaking it does not mean you are guaranteed service if you do have shoes and shirt. In other words, they can still deny you service if you’re flopping your wiener around. https://www.varsitytutors.com/hotmath/hotmath_help/topics/converse-inverse-contrapositive Thanks for helping me refresh my basic logic knowledge!
-
I think they're just assuming you'll wear pants because ... isn't it a law that you have to wear pants in public? But also because people are more likely to try and go without shirt/shoes like especially on the beach and things But yeah it's super vague
-
5 AntwortenSo there's this thing called "common sense"...
-
Even when I saw such signs as a child, I've never found it vague nor difficult to understand.
-
38 AntwortenImagine walking into a public restaurant with just a shirt and shoes
-
Drop pants and undies on the ground, walk in wearing only a shirt and shoes, order food...
-
3 AntwortenAlso it doesn’t specify underwear. So even if we’re pedantic about having to wear shirt and shoes I should be able to walk in wearing ONLY a shirt and some shoes and be served without hassle.
