Even then, you can cut wood with stuff other than - #105483486 added by thechosentroll at i can make it work

#7 - moorbs

Reply+212

(11/07/2013)[-]

I know the wood and metal are switched but what makes this axe a 'paradox'?

#132 to #7 - azinfoo

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

Actually you can use the word "paradox" just to describe something nonsensical I believe.

#96 to #7 - willgum

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

i thought it was a reference to the axe question from the movie "John dies at the end"

#32 to #7 - anon id: e6807d0b

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

nothing... and that's why it's a paradox - it's a paradox without being a paradox

#19 to #7 - anon id: af8ae9fe

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

A paradox would imply that something is impossible as it disturbs the natural order.

The message is the same, but not appropriate. This is inversion. Like if you had two bread-sized pieces of peanut butter and jelly and put two pieces of bread in the middle. That's inversion.

Not only that, but you'd have a great grip, but a flimsy axe.

#207 to #19 - klagy

Reply0

(02/03/2016)[-]

What are you on about? The grip for that is *****, you don't want to have a metal grip for an axe as the thickness of it would make it unable to bend as well, the stress of using it to cut down trees would cause it to break. This is why good axe handles tend to be made of wood. They are tough, and flexible enough not to break after a lot of strikes onto a log or tree trunk plastic handles can be used as an adequate substitute, but tend to not be as good because of construction and usually break.

#11 to #7 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply+333

(11/07/2013)[-]

Because it's tumblr. Most of them don't know what the words "irony", "paradox", "self-irony" or "originality" mean.

#164 to #11 - anon id: a3576b40

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

Yes. As if Funnyjunk is any different.

#143 to #11 - anon id: bb847567

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

Or possibly because you're using a wooden blade to presumably cut down a tree.

#120 to #11 - anon id: 4262247b

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

"hurr durr tumblr hate, tumblr r retards, fj is superior"

#117 to #11 - abiku

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

I'm pretty sure It wasn't named the Paradox Axe by Tumblr people though, but maybe the maker of it?

#108 to #11 - yetiyitties

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

You sure that's not Funnyjunk?

#89 to #11 - dyalibya#499 on commentsRank#499

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

what does self-irony mean anyway ? , NM googling it

#88 to #11 - createdjustnow

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

heh funnyjunk dosn't know "originality"

#80 to #11 - redcookiemonster

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

Well, in this case, I guess you could call it..........

wait for it

woody

That's ok, I'll go die now.

#66 to #11 - RiflemanFunny

Reply+25

(11/07/2013)[-]

Or "literally"

#67 to #66 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply+6

(11/07/2013)[-]

Oh, ESPECIALLY that.

#68 to #67 - anon id: 0e7527c3

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

Using literally for emphasis is a correct use.

#151 to #68 - IamSofaKingdom

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

There is an instance to use it as emphasis in something but it is not widely accepted and generally seen as incorrect because it is not the traditional definition and is often used to emphasis something that doesn't need it. Using as a means of emphasis is tricky at best and I would never try to present that to an English professor. I think the only reason it is even partially considered is because of how often it is abused by the teenage/younger generation.

#69 to #68 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply+5

(11/07/2013)[-]

Not when it's stuff like "I literally shat bricks" or "i literally died right now". That sort of thing.

#93 to #69 - atma

Reply-5

(11/08/2013)[-]

Well... it still is correct. Just not necessarily palatable.

#97 to #93 - RiflemanFunny

Reply+7

(11/08/2013)[-]

I dare you to literally **** a brick right now. That and literally die laughing.

#160 to #97 - pkrbarmoviea

Reply+1

(11/08/2013)[-]

Well, that's what an exaggeration is, isn't it?

#102 to #97 - atma

Reply+6

(11/08/2013)[-]

I mean using "literally" for emphasis. Mark Twain used it often, as in Tom Sawyer:
"And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth."

#106 to #102 - RiflemanFunny

Reply-1

(11/08/2013)[-]

Are you really using Mark Twain to make Tumblr look good? Mark Twain was a literary genius; Tumblr makes Samuel Johnson **** in his grave. Emphasis is a literary tool, not a comment tool.

#107 to #106 - atma

Reply+3

(11/08/2013)[-]

No, I'm using Mark Twain to defend the English language.
A literary tool isn't restricted to novels, it can be used in any form of text that isn't transcript.
Actually, even in transcript, you can use emphasis. So, make that any form of text.

Still, I'd like to reiterate that I'm just saying it's correct, not that it's pleasant.

#168 to #107 - mrbuu

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

yeah,but literally shat bricks isn't near what they mean. Most of the time they had a sudden realization. that never made me **** or blow my mind. That is like saying. I literally almost died. when you stubbed your toe. I get bring attention and emphasis on a subject,but there is a difference between being a inch off and being a mile.

#111 to #107 - RiflemanFunny

Reply-2

(11/08/2013)[-]

It's informal. It adds intensity to an already ****** comment. I've gone through so much College Composition that I can't stand horribly structured comments. Plus, it's Tumblr. Leave it at that.

#158 to #111 - warioteam

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

No one gives a **** what you think or don't think is formal.
It's grammatically and structurally correct, and until you unveil your time machine, its going to stay that way.

#113 to #111 - atma

Reply+1

(11/08/2013)[-]

but tumblr gives me porn

#115 to #113 - RiflemanFunny

Reply+1

(11/08/2013)[-]

I'll give ya that

#105 to #102 - lightninghorse

Reply0

(11/08/2013)[-]

that just means he got enough money to make a pile and roll in it. lucky bastard

#63 to #11 - lolzordz

Reply+1

(11/07/2013)[-]

is it self irony that i didn't know what self irony was till today?

#36 to #11 - fhenix

Reply-3

(11/07/2013)[-]

Or, more likely, because an axe was used to cut down the wood required to make that axe in the first place. The paradox doesn't make sense but it is a paradox.
Paradox: You need to cut down the tree to make the axe but you need the axe to cut down the tree.

#64 to #36 - neokun

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

You can tell you are one of the tumblr people.

#41 to #36 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply+2

(11/07/2013)[-]

THAT'S NOT A BLOODY PARADOX! A paradox is a question with two correct, mutually exclusive answers. No one ever follows the damn definition. Just like with irony.

#46 to #41 - fhenix

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

There are multiple different definitions to the word paradox, the one being used here is the idea behind logical paradoxes. This specific example involves infinite regression ('A' must be true in order for 'B' to be true, but 'B' must be true in order for 'A' to be true.)

#47 to #46 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

It's still not a paradox.

#48 to #47 - fhenix

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

The idea behind the paradox in the paradox axe may be flawed but it still shares a common theme with popular logical paradoxes (that theme being infinite regression). Just because this specific logical paradox has an answer to it, doesn't make it not a paradox, paradoxes have been solved before.

#49 to #48 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

Uhm....................... doesn't solving a paradox mean it's no longer a paradox? Like I said, a paradox has two correct, but mutually exclusive answers. Finding the answers is easy, but you can't pick one, due to the nature of the paradox. If you solve a paradox, it ceases to be a paradox. That's how paradoxes work.

#52 to #49 - fhenix

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

No, a paradox is only supposed to seem like it doesn't have an answer. It can have a solution and still be a paradox.

#55 to #52 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

No, no, no. I said it HAS an answer. Two, in fact. You just can't pinpoint one.

#57 to #55 - fhenix

Reply+1

(11/07/2013)[-]

What you're talking about is a contradiction paradox, I'm talking about circular paradoxes. They're both paradoxes, just different kinds.

#58 to #57 - thechosentroll#34 on commentsRank#34

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

Even then, you can cut wood with stuff other than an axe. You could just break a branch off with your bare hands, for ****** sake.

#61 to #58 - fhenix

Reply+1

(11/07/2013)[-]

That's why I said this paradox was flawed. But by the definition of 'infinite regression' and 'paradox' the axe is still technically a paradox.

#75 to #61 - newforomador

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

So, the type of paradox you're talking about, is like saying "Today's opposite day" on opposite day. At least, if everything you said was true 100% of the time If you say it's opposite day, that means it can't be opposite day because everything say has the opposite meaning, but that means that it would in fact be opposite day, and it continues forever.

#78 to #75 - fhenix

Reply0

(11/07/2013)[-]

That's both an infinite regression paradox and a contradiction paradox. But, unlike the paradox axe, it is only a logical paradox it's not, strictly speaking, a paradox because it doesn't have a singular solution.

#39 to #36 - ericforeman

Reply+7

(11/07/2013)[-]

Are we overlooking the fact that most axes have wooden handles