Whats Your Favorite Oxymoron?

[Psychokitty]

Actualy "daydream" is an oxymoron, because mostly people sleep at night, and you tend to dream more often while your asleep, and "day" is opposite of "night". And all oxymorons are like that, "bright night" because night is dark, but it can be bright because of lightning and thunder. "Jumbo Shrimp" because shrimps are usualy very small fish-like things, but in some cases, like the food, they can be quite big. Same with alot of other oxymorons, but I do know that alot of the ones that people are posting saying that they aen't oxymorons are not oxymorons like y'all are saying. I just like to bend rules every now and then. And why try to look intellegent when I know I am? It doesn't matter what others think, just what I know.

[Momiji]

Actualy "daydream" is an oxymoron, because mostly people sleep at night, and you tend to dream more often while your asleep, and "day" is opposite of "night". And all oxymorons are like that, "bright night" because night is dark, but it can be bright because of lightning and thunder. "Jumbo Shrimp" because shrimps are usualy very small fish-like things, but in some cases, like the food, they can be quite big. Same with alot of other oxymorons, but I do know that alot of the ones that people are posting saying that they aen't oxymorons are not oxymorons like y'all are saying. I just like to bend rules every now and then. And why try to look intellegent when I know I am? It doesn't matter what others think, just what I know.

*exasperated*

You won't be winning any debates with such blind arrogance.

Again with my analogy of ramen to ice cream; rules are not meant to be bent as such. If they were, nothing would make sense.

First of all, I shall repeat myself. 'Daydream' is not an oxymoron. 'Dream' has more than one definition. A dream can be someone's greatest desire, or even a simple thought that causes excessive distraction, as in the compound word 'daydream'. Not to mention, people sleeping and dreaming during the day is not uncommon. Therefore, if you claim it is an oxymoron, it is rather vague. Dreams may have some connection to 'night', which is obviously the opposite of day. However, 'dream' is not the opposite of 'day', and if you wanted it to be an oxymoron, you would have to call it 'daynight', which clearly makes no sense. So again I say: you are incorrect.

As for 'bright night', that could only partially be an oxymoron, if you are considering 'night' to be the substitute for 'dark'. 'Night' is merely a time of a day. Besides, a night really could be bright, given the moon is particularly bright that night, and then it merely becomes an adjective to describe the night, and not a contradiction.

'Jumbo shrimp' is an oxymoron, however, because 'jumbo' shrimp are indeed very large compared to smaller shrimp, although any shrimp is relatively small, not to mention the word 'shrimp' is used to define small things. This one is correct.

A good 80% (estimation, but I don't think I'm very far off) of the phrases you made up are not oxymorons, because they make absolutely no sense to begin with (see my previous statement about 'daynight'). Because of this, your idea of 'bending the rules' is a flagrant error. This is something you really cannot bend the rules to and still have it make sense.

And...checkmate. Prolonging this debate any longer will only make you seem foolish. Please stop while you are behind.

[Psychokitty]

I don't care if I seem foolish, I

KNOW

"bright night", and "daydream" are oxymorons because they don't allways have to be 100% precise, they

CAN

be rather vauge. Oxymorons don't have to follow the fictinal "Laws of Science" because the "Laws of Science" don't follow the ways of life's works. For instance, they say you can't create or destroy matter, but you can. Take "matter", and combine it with the substance called "anti-matter" or put it into a "black hole" and you would have a chemical reaction that would evidentaly destroy "matter." Other laws can be broken because some of the laws are not phisicaly or mentaly or scientificaly or universaly or Divinly correct. Where did the matter come from that resulted from the "Big Bang Therom?" What put it there and how did it get there? What was there before the so-called "Explosion that started the Universe?" How do we know that there are not other dimentions? Have we ever put someone or something able to withstand high ammounts of pressure and whatever might be in a "black hole" into a "black hole?" Oxymorons, like almost everything, do not follow the rules of scientists. They didn't invint the world, universe, or oxymorons, so they can't decide if it is or not just because it dosen't follow THEIR patterns.

[Big D]

Where did the matter come from that resulted from the "Big Bang Therom?" What put it there and how did it get there? What was there before the so-called "Explosion that started the Universe?" How do we know that there are not other dimentions?

You almost inadvertently answered your own question there. Some current theories/speculation about the ultimate origin of the universe (i.e. the origins of everything that formed the matter and energy unleashed in the Big Bang) involve other dimensions.

:Edit:

And on a more relevant note...
An oxymoron is an oxymoron, a concept with a defined and limited meaning. A human construct. Not something that can be redefined at whim. Deciding that you want to give the word a wider meaning is one thing, but that does not actually make it so. For example, I can't declare myself a gibbon and expect others to accept my redefinition of 'gibbon', regardless of any real or perceived similarities I might, or might not, have to said primate.

[Momiji]

:Edit:

And on a more relevant note...
An oxymoron is an oxymoron, a concept with a defined and limited meaning. A human construct. Not something that can be redefined at whim. Deciding that you want to give the word a wider meaning is one thing, but that does not actually make it so. For example, I can't declare myself a gibbon and expect others to accept my redefinition of 'gibbon', regardless of any real or perceived similarities I might, or might not, have to said primate.

THANK YOU for the second opinion, Big D.

Sorry Psychokitty, I'm afraid you're wrong through and through on this subject. If I may boil it down to terms that you can comprehend, I KNOW you are wrong because I KNOW I am correct. It is much better to be silent and thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. You have officially removed all of my doubt.

[DarkLadyNyara]

And on a more relevant note...
An oxymoron is an oxymoron, a concept with a defined and limited meaning. A human construct. Not something that can be redefined at whim. Deciding that you want to give the word a wider meaning is one thing, but that does not actually make it so. For example, I can't declare myself a gibbon and expect others to accept my redefinition of 'gibbon', regardless of any real or perceived similarities I might, or might not, have to said primate.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You just saved me several paragraphs of semi-coherent ranting on the subject.

[Værn]

Manus wins.

Was that just a statement, or were you suggesting it as an oxymoron?

[Old Manus]

Touché

[Psychokitty]

Where did the matter come from that resulted from the "Big Bang Therom?" What put it there and how did it get there? What was there before the so-called "Explosion that started the Universe?" How do we know that there are not other dimentions?

You almost inadvertently answered your own question there. Some current theories/speculation about the ultimate origin of the universe (i.e. the origins of everything that formed the matter and energy unleashed in the Big Bang) involve other dimensions.

:Edit:

And on a more relevant note...
An oxymoron is an oxymoron, a concept with a defined and limited meaning. A human construct. Not something that can be redefined at whim. Deciding that you want to give the word a wider meaning is one thing, but that does not actually make it so. For example, I can't declare myself a gibbon and expect others to accept my redefinition of 'gibbon', regardless of any real or perceived similarities I might, or might not, have to said primate.

I know that alot of my "oxymorons" aren't oxymorons, and I know that people probibly won't accept my theory on it, but I can still stretch the meanings of things if I want. Plus, I think the world could do without another critic. I'll just call my stretch of an Oxymoron an Oxybearron, after part of my last name "Bearrow."

:Edit:

And on a more relevant note...
An oxymoron is an oxymoron, a concept with a defined and limited meaning. A human construct. Not something that can be redefined at whim. Deciding that you want to give the word a wider meaning is one thing, but that does not actually make it so. For example, I can't declare myself a gibbon and expect others to accept my redefinition of 'gibbon', regardless of any real or perceived similarities I might, or might not, have to said primate.

THANK YOU for the second opinion, Big D.

Sorry Psychokitty, I'm afraid you're wrong through and through on this subject. If I may boil it down to terms that you can comprehend, I KNOW you are wrong because I KNOW I am correct. It is much better to be silent and thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. You have officially removed all of my doubt.

Then why did you speak and ruin the fun of this thread for everyone? Why didn't you just remain silent about it or just PM me to start a private Theolgical debate about it rather then open it up here and ruin the whole thread? It was a nice, fun thread before you and Big D ruined it, and besides, arn't you supoosed to Poetically Pathetic? Oxymorons take place in the Poetry section of Lititure, not the Prose section, and I do ask to be corrected if I'm wrong about the catigory that Oxymorons fit into.

[Momiji]

Um...first of all, you ruined your own thread with your blind stupidity. And don't go pinning the blame on Big D, either. He IS right after all, unlike you.

By the way, oxymorons occur in both prose and poetry. If you were actually knowledgeable of the subject, you would know that.

Furthermore, I did not ruin this thread. You're just pissed that I'm saying you're wrong in front of everyone else. Grow the hell up or shut the hell up, PLEASE.

[Quindiana Jones]

PP, though correct, will probably get a smack on the back of the hand for that.

I've decided to call guns medical devices. They're very effective at curing all diseases, therefore they must be good and useful and wonderful objects of peace and happiness. :rolleyes2

Making up a definition doesn't mean your definition is correct.

[Psychokitty]

I know my def wasn't correct, all I was saying was that I like to bend some rules sometimes. I knew some wern't and I thank you for correcting