If the earth was the size of a basketball you’d hardly be able to feel the Himalayas and the Trench is about twice that deep so a regular size bowl like that wouldn’t be too weird
When I mentioned the Mariana Trench I wasn't thinking
about getting to the bottom of it, I was just thinking of the bottom being
different depths. How would you ever set it down?
Except no one claims that when they coined the term Dust Bowl, they meant "something you would eat soup out of." And you currently are claiming that the parts of the earth that contain the ocean do count as "something you would eat soup out of it."
1) I do not agree that a geographical location can be called a bowl, but regardless, the ocean would not be a geographical location that could be called a bowl. The definition of a geological bowl is: "a natural formation or geographical region shaped like a bowl." The definition of a bowl bowl is: "a concave usually nearly hemispherical vessel : a rounded container that is usually larger than a cup."
I feel like now is the right time to point that part of your original argument for it being a bowl was "It’s a big concave dish! That’s a bowl!" and now you're saying it doesn't have to be a concave dish and that is not arguing in good faith
no subject
Okay, I can get behind that.
Still not in a bowl, though.
no subject
It’s a big concave dish! That’s a bowl!
no subject
What kind of bowl has anything like the Mariana Trench?
no subject
If the earth was the size of a basketball you’d hardly be able to feel the Himalayas and the Trench is about twice that deep so a regular size bowl like that wouldn’t be too weird
no subject
1) You never said anything about shrinking the planet, 2) the bottom of the bowl still wouldn't be flat, it'd be all bumpy. Not a good design.
no subject
I'm not shrinking it I'm just pointing out relative distances by scale
And you'd never get to the bottom of the ocean anyways so it's fine
no subject
Whether or not you'll get to the bottom of a bowl doesn't determine whether or not it IS a bowl at all.
no subject
No but your argument was based on getting to the bottom of it!
no subject
When I mentioned the Mariana Trench I wasn't thinking about getting to the bottom of it, I was just thinking of the bottom being different depths. How would you ever set it down?
no subject
You' don't have to pick it up
no subject
If I can't set it down or pick it up, how am I meant to fill it or empty it or wash it?
no subject
None of those are requirements for something to be a bowl though. It's already full
no subject
How are those not requirements of something being a bowl?
no subject
The Dust Bowl wasn’t a bowl you could pick up
no subject
...I adore you.
Perhaps I disagree with the Dust Bowl being called a bowl as well.
no subject
I adore you too! What brought that on though?
Okay in that case your fight is with historians or something
another one I didn't know I hadn't replied to
Except no one claims that when they coined the term Dust Bowl, they meant "something you would eat soup out of." And you currently are claiming that the parts of the earth that contain the ocean do count as "something you would eat soup out of it."
Re: another one I didn't know I hadn't replied to
Oh well I'm glad I'm perfect for you then
But it was called the Dust BOWL because of the geographic area being a "bowl". So geography can be a bowl
Re: another one I didn't know I hadn't replied to
But you weren't talking about geographical bowls, you were talking about soup bowls.
Re: another one I didn't know I hadn't replied to
If a geographical location can be a bowl and that bowl is filled with water, meat, and vegetables then it can be a soup bowl
no subject
For reference, the ocean floor: [img]
That is not concave or hemispherical.
no subject
The key flaw in your reasoning is that is says USUALLY
no subject
Oh, honey. You could do better than that.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)