>So what's your presumably non-childish objection to other things being given "w...

hartpuff · on April 22, 2016

My God, this is completely ridiculous, but I'll try one more time.

Do you or do you not believe everything should have a whimsical name?

To save time: If your answer to this is "No, I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name", then what is your non-childish objection to whimsical names in some cases?

aninhumer · on April 22, 2016

That's a false dichotomy. I do not believe everything should have a whimsical name nor do I believe they shouldn't.

(Except in the sense that variety is preferable, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.)

carc · on April 22, 2016

Not supporting OP but their question is not at all a dichotomy. The question wasn't should everything have a whimsical name or should nothing have a whimsical name. The question was basically just should everything have a whimsical name. Sounds like your answer is no, because you're ok with things having whimsical names sometimes.

aninhumer · on April 23, 2016

Yes that's how I read it, and it is a false dichotomy, because not thinking something should be the case is not the same as thinking it shouldn't be the case. They're both value judgements of which I make neither.

simplemath · on April 22, 2016

Are you by chance on the committee that is naming this boat?

If not, you'd be an excellent committee member. You'd be a total hit at committees.