2007-05-08
20:37:45
·
44 answers
·
asked by
Bluelady...
7
in
Entertainment & Music
➔ Polls & Surveys
Hey Babyyuuk- NO need to name call,
it's just a fun question!! Grow up!
2007-05-08
21:01:18 ·
update #1
To call me a idiot, You then are calling the man whom also quoted this.
Which was no other than Albert Einstein.
2007-05-08
21:09:00 ·
update #2
Hello meelah s- Since you have just started I will let your remark go, but pre school no, just fun! What was your reason for joining one might ask, Or even to answer my posting?
Honey you clearly must have taking a wrong click to Q's & A's and thought it was grade one home work????
2007-05-08
21:15:04 ·
update #3
Einstein people!!!
She is using one of many, Albert Einstein quotes!!!!
GET EDUCATED FOR THE RUDE REMARKS!!
Then again your not here, just my imagination running away with me & my nuts!
2007-05-09 05:27:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by My Nut!!! 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Most likely false. (yes i know this is a joke, but something compels me to pretend it's not). The question addresses a "you," and asks that "you" to make conscious decisions about the world. By the rules of pragmatics, the questioner must have a thinking entity to whom they are addressing the question. Ergo, the "you" must exist. Since all thinking entitites (of whom I am aware) had biological parents (in the sense that some other entities provided egg and sperm and one of the parents gave physical birth to the "you"), we reach a conundrum when we realize that said "parents" had no children. Since we know the "you" has biological parents, and yet the question cannot be referring to these biological parents (since these biological parents clearly had children), we must conclude that the "parents" in the sentence actually refer to social-legal parents (most likely adoptive parents). If that is the case, we can only answer the question if we had evidence that children who are adopted are unlikely to, themselves, have children (biological or adopted). Note, too, that we need to establish more than a predisposition against adoptees having their own children, because the phrases "chances are you won't" implies not just likelihood, but near certainty.
2007-05-08 20:46:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Qwyrx 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
False
2007-05-08 20:41:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mag 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Very true. Of course, I did know a family in which a couple never had children but took in many foster children, the majority of whom had children of their own so it's not impossible.
2007-05-08 20:44:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kuji 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Duh... If your parents never had children they they would not be parents... just married with NO KIDS and you would not be alive.
The answer is true you wont have kids because you don't exist!
Now do you know who is buried in Grants tomb?
But good one... or how about "if a plane crashes on the boarder of the USA and Mexico where do they burry the survives?
2007-05-08 20:47:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chato S 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
False
2007-05-08 20:40:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
If the parent never had any children, there wouldn't be any children to have children. So that would be TRUE. Is this a trick question?
2007-05-08 20:40:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by FL Girl 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
True. The chances are you werent born if your parents didnt have children or you were adopted. If adopted you could still have children, so i dont really know what those chances really are.....hmmmm.
2007-05-08 20:42:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by pizzandgrill 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
True, Because I wouldent have the chance because my parents never had children..
2007-05-08 20:40:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by hollya707 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would answer this but I can't. My Mom and Dad didn't have any children, so I'm not really here!!
2007-05-08 20:41:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by DixeVil 5
·
1⤊
0⤋