karcatgirl-vantas:
the default way for things to taste is good. we know this because "tasty" means something tastes good. conversely, from the words "smelly" and "noisy" we can conclude that the default way for things to smell and sound is bad. interestingly there are no corresponding adjectives for the senses of sight and touch. the inescapable conclusion is that the most ordinary object possible is invisible and intangible, produces a hideous cacophony, smells terrible, but tastes delicious. and yet this description matches no object or phenomenon known to science or human experience. so what the fuck
skluug:
this is what ancient greek philosophy is like
sightly is a thing... Something that looks good.
And touchy is a thing, it touches back, so it’s something that looks good, can touch you back, smells bad, is loud, but tastes yummy…
Or it gets really defensive when you ask if personal questions
Sounds just like my ex
How would you know what your ex tasted like?
That’s why she’s the ex… he didn’t like the way she tasted… down there.
To be honest, everyone knows what their ex tastes like.
What is, a dog?
Please don’t taste fluffy.
We also say someone is a “looker” when they’re hot. And that things are “touchy.” though the latter is often used figuratively, it can be and definitely is used literally.
Also cows smell terrible, make a ton of awful noise, but taste delicious.
This post is just shitty, misinformed pontification. It’s definitely not anything close to philosophy.
I mean, the description of shitty misinformed pontification describes a pretty good chunk of Greek and roman philosophy. Have you read a lot of Aristotle?
FTFY
But, something can look so aweful you cannot avert your eyes of it. Like a stereotypical car accident.