Volumnius Flush
10-04-2006, 05:17 PM
This is my first of, hopefully, a series in sophisms.
So today I took a deuce at the Barnes & Noble. I flushed the toilet and went to wash my hands. In the bathroom there was one stall and a urinal. In the urinal, someone had either inadvertently or purposefully not flushed it.
As I was washing my hands, a man came in, went to the toilet and began wiping off the seat.
Here's the problem:
If you walked in and saw me washing my hands and the scene as I described it above, would you assume I used the toilet or the urinal? As a matter of cleanliness, I tend to flush more often than not so it would be wise to assume any normal person would flush.
But what if the toilet had just been installed? It was a brand new toilet and I was the first one to use it. Where is the line drawn to distinguish the fact a) Wiping off a toilet seat on a toilet that has never been used is redundant and b) If I had used the facility for what it was intended, there was more physical evidence to suggest I used the urinal?
The breakdown to this argument is a difficult one and comes down to opinion. But it is burning me. Did he know I deuced simply because logic would say to flush and that I seem logical, or did he know the toilet was dirty and had neither a preference for my germs over anyone else's?
So today I took a deuce at the Barnes & Noble. I flushed the toilet and went to wash my hands. In the bathroom there was one stall and a urinal. In the urinal, someone had either inadvertently or purposefully not flushed it.
As I was washing my hands, a man came in, went to the toilet and began wiping off the seat.
Here's the problem:
If you walked in and saw me washing my hands and the scene as I described it above, would you assume I used the toilet or the urinal? As a matter of cleanliness, I tend to flush more often than not so it would be wise to assume any normal person would flush.
But what if the toilet had just been installed? It was a brand new toilet and I was the first one to use it. Where is the line drawn to distinguish the fact a) Wiping off a toilet seat on a toilet that has never been used is redundant and b) If I had used the facility for what it was intended, there was more physical evidence to suggest I used the urinal?
The breakdown to this argument is a difficult one and comes down to opinion. But it is burning me. Did he know I deuced simply because logic would say to flush and that I seem logical, or did he know the toilet was dirty and had neither a preference for my germs over anyone else's?