• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Invisible Pink Unicorn

TheERK

Thinker
T
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
174
Can we please stop using this phrase? By definition, it is an impossible entity, for obvious reasons. Usually it's used in a context which requires an example of something that might exist, but warrants no belief. Using a theoretically impossible thing constructs a faulty analogy, and can only serve to confuse. Invisible unicorn would suffice.

Besides, it's incredibly trite. Use your imagination, folks.
 
Is something pink still pink when you close your eyes? Maybe the process of its invisibility is to make us not see it rather than to change itself? The title of Invisible Pink Unicorn also implies (to those familiar to it) the notion of being insubstantial as well, undectectable by any means.

Mainly though, it is an absurdity, just as God is an absurdity.


Besides, it's tradition. :D
 
TheERK said:
By definition, it is an impossible entity, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
I'll make you a deal, if you can convince Christians, Jews and Muslims that man being made in the image of a supposedly formless God contains a similar contridiction, then I'll stop using it.

I myself usually use Carl Sagans' invisible dragon when I'm talking about an example of an unfalsifiable concept in science or general society, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn only when I'm talking about religion.

Also since the IPU is actually a religious movement by itself (akin to Discordianism and Church of the Subgenius) I don't think they'll change their mind.
 
As a minister in the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I resent the insinuation that the object of our devotion does not exist. If you want a real logical impossibility, try the "Triune God" of the x-tians.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists but you must have faith to believe before you can receive the truth of this.
 
I think I know ERK's pain. I don't object to the use of the IPU, just the overuse. It's become such a kneejerk reaction to throw it out, that many believers just roll their eyes and ignore it. I just think it's lost it's effectiveness in it's ubiquity. Much in the same way that many posts are responded to in other overused and misused one-liners like:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"Occam's Razor"

"Ad-hom. ho hum"

or just,

"Evidence?"

Not that these aren't legitimate responses for the most part, but they're frequently employed incorrectly in my opinion. I understand and share the frustration many of us have with trying to deal with some claimants who don't put much thought into their posts and ignore ours when we do. But I can also see why some believers have begun to look at such responses as mere cliches.
 
I've been saying that for two years now. Apparently the unicorn appears to certain individuals who can see that it is pink. Therefore it's not invisible in the same sense that it is pink, so there is no immediate logical contradiction.
 
I must object to the Pink Unicorn being labeled Invisible. It's not to me. I walk and talk with the Pink Unicorn every day. In troubling situations I ask myself, "What would the Pink Unicorn do?"

The answer varies. Sometimes it says "Go forth and eat clover grass." Sometimes it says, "Go forth and eat cowslip." You might think I'm crazy but it worked. It helped my irritable bowel syndrome.

Magnificent.

It also helps me find virgins. Always a good thing.
 
Gastric ReFlux said:
You might think I'm crazy but it worked. It helped my irritable bowel syndrome.
Click to expand...
Since I suffer from your namesake maybe I'll give that a try. On the other hand maybe not.

Gastric ReFlux said:
It also helps me find virgins. Always a good thing.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Girls love horses, and most at some stage wanted to be a princess, and since a good princess probably has a unicorn or two, it's like every dream come true.
Selling them on the invisible idea is the tricky part GR.
 
Wasn't there some myth about how virgins could't bend over in the woods because a unicorn would spear them in the you-know-what.
 
Wudang said:
I think the fact that the phrase "invisible pink unicorn" imbeds a logical inconsistency is essential. I think you miss the point. It works on so many levels.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's essential. Like I said, people usually use the IPU as an example of something that might exist, like a dragon in your garage, and then noting that no serious person would explicitly 'believe' in such a thing, despite its feasability.

The IPU should be reserved only as an example of something that simply cannot exist.
 
Dogwood said:
I think I know ERK's pain. I don't object to the use of the IPU, just the overuse. It's become such a kneejerk reaction to throw it out, that many believers just roll their eyes and ignore it. I just think it's lost it's effectiveness in it's ubiquity. Much in the same way that many posts are responded to in other overused and misused one-liners like:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"Occam's Razor"

"Ad-hom. ho hum"

or just,

"Evidence?"

Not that these aren't legitimate responses for the most part, but they're frequently employed incorrectly in my opinion. I understand and share the frustration many of us have with trying to deal with some claimants who don't put much thought into their posts and ignore ours when we do. But I can also see why some believers have begun to look at such responses as mere cliches.
Click to expand...

I think that people's response tends to be about conditioning: most people are just too lazy to consider every claim on its merits. That said, I'm completely embarassed by the things I said fifteen years ago. I probably sounded a little like "1inChrist" although under the surface, I never could quite believe it - it never fit. I now know why....

That said, dismissal of others arguments is a rash on this board. The cliche of the moment appears to be "that's a fallacy!".
 
TheERK said:
Can we please stop using this phrase? By definition, it is an impossible entity, for obvious reasons. Usually it's used in a context which requires an example of something that might exist, but warrants no belief. Using a theoretically impossible thing constructs a faulty analogy, and can only serve to confuse. Invisible unicorn would suffice.

Besides, it's incredibly trite. Use your imagination, folks.
Click to expand...

I always figured that the impossblity of the IPU was the whole point. Both sides can likely agree that there is no IPU, thus when you show that the same argument someone uses for God could also apply to the IPU, you show the weakness of the arguments.
 
No, no, no.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a pink unicorn that happens to be invisible. Invisible pink is a color unto itself. Of course, this is what happens when we allow those who are unfamiliar with the correct, established interpretation of IPU doctrine to debate.

Jeremy
 
TheERK said:
Can we please stop using this phrase?
Click to expand...

No. It's established cultural myth.

By definition, it is an impossible entity, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

It's fair comment on the Catholic doctrine that the Trinity is illogical and that the illogic demonstrates divinity.
 
The Cats Venm said:
Is something pink still pink when you close your eyes? Maybe the process of its invisibility is to make us not see it rather than to change itself?
Click to expand...

Calls to mind from childhood some of Green Lantern's foes, who had "invisible yellow force fields". If it's invisible, it's not yellow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom