Joke's Database
     
Have fun searching 100181 jokes and pictures!


Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A1: Three; one to do it and two to sue him for malpractice.

A2: It only takes one lawyer to change your light bulb to his light bulb.

A3: You won’t find a lawyer who can change a light bulb. Now, if you’re looking for a lawyer to screw a light bulb…

A4: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as “Lawyer”, and the party of the second part, also known as “Light Bulb”, do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties.

The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:

1. The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, this point being non-negotiable.

2. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part (“Receptacle”), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.

3. Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part (“New Light Bulb”). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this self-same document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, this point also being non-negotiable.

NOTE: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by any or all persons authorized by him, the objective being to produce the most possible revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as “Partnership.”

Proofs that p
Davidson’s proof that p:
Let us make the following bold conjecture: p
Wallace’s proof that p:
Davidson has made the following bold conjecture: p
Grunbaum:
As I have asserted again and again in previous publications, p.
Putnam:
Some philosophers have argued that not-p, on the grounds that q. It would be an interesting exercise to count all the fallacies in this “argument”. (It’s really awful, isn’t it?) Therefore p.
Rawls:
It would be nice to have a deductive argument that p from self- evident premises. Unfortunately I am unable to provide one. So I will have to rest content with the following intuitive considerations in its support: p.
Unger:
Suppose it were the case that not-p. It would follow from this that someone knows that q. But on my view, no one knows anything whatsoever. Therefore p. (Unger believes that the louder you say this argument, the more persuasive it becomes).
Katz:
I have seventeen arguments for the claim that p, and I know of only four for the claim that not-p. Therefore p.
Lewis:
Most people find the claim that not-p completely obvious and when I assert p they give me an incredulous stare. But the fact that they find not- p obvious is no argument that it is true; and I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare. Therefore, p.
Fodor:
My argument for p is based on three premises:
1. q
2. r
and
3. p
From these, the claim that p deductively follows. Some people may find the third premise controversial, but it is clear that if we replaced that premise by any other reasonable premise, the argument would go through just as well.
Sellars’ proof that p:
Unfortunately limitations of space prevent it from being included here, but important parts of the proof can be found in each of the articles in the attached bibliography.
Earman:
There are solutions to the field equations of general relativity in which space-time has the structure of a four- dimensional Klein bottle and in which there is no matter. In each such space-time, the claim that not-p is false. Therefore p.
Goodman:
Zabludowski has insinuated that my thesis that p is false, on the basis of alleged counterexamples. But these so- called “counterexamples” depend on construing my thesis that p in a way that it was obviously not intended — for I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.
.
Outline Of A Proof That P (1):
Saul Kripke
Some philosophers have argued that not-p. But none of them seems to me to have made a convincing argument against the intuitive view that this is not the case. Therefore, p.
_________________
(1) This outline was prepared hastily — at the editor’s insistence — from a taped manuscript of a lecture. Since I was not even given the opportunity to revise the first draft before publication, I cannot be held responsible for any lacunae in the (published version of the) argument, or for any fallacious or garbled inferences resulting from faulty preparation of the typescript. Also, the argument now seems to me to have problems which I did not know when I wrote it, but which I can’t discuss here, and which are completely unrelated to any criticisms that have appeared in the literature (or that I have seen in manuscript); all such criticisms misconstrue my argument. It will be noted that the present version of the argument seems to presuppose the (intuitionistically unacceptable) law of double negation. But the argument can easily be reformulated in a way that avoids employing such an inference rule. I hope to expand on these matters further in a separate monograph.
Routley and Meyer:
If (q & not-q) is true, then there is a model for p. Therefore p.
Plantinga:
It is a model theorem that p -> p. Surely its possible that p must be true. Thus p. But it is a model theorem that p -> p. Therefore p.
Chisholm:
P-ness is self-presenting. Therefore, p.
Morganbesser:
If not p, what? q maybe?

Driving to work, a gentlman had to swerve to avoid a box that fell out of a truck in front of him. Seconds later, a policeman pulled him over for reckless driving. Fortunately, another officer had seen the carton in the road. The policmen stopped traffic and recovered the box. It was found to contain large upholstery tacks.

“I’m sorry sir,” the first trooper told the driver, “but I am still going to have to write you a ticket.”

Amazed, the driver asked for what.

The trooper replied, “Tacks evasion.”

A middle manager is called into his bosses office on a Monday morning.
He is told he has to get rid of one employee in his department by the
next Monday. “Downsizing.”

He’s really upset. Everyone in his department does a good job and it
doesn’t seem fair. So for the next 2 days he racks his brain trying to
figure out who to fire. On Tuesday afternoon he sees Jack and Jill
standing at the water cooler. He says to himself, “Okay it’s going to be
one of them.”

He spends the next few days scrutinizing what each of them does.
Everything is equal. Productivity. Time off. Reports. Everything. He’s
in a quandary. It’s Friday afternoon and he knows his going to have to
think about this all weekend. Everyone has left the office except Jack and
Jill, who are getting ready to leave. She comes over to say goodbye.

“Have a good weekend boss. Hey you don’t look so good. Is everything
okay?”
He looks at her and says “To be honest, I’m having a tough time here. I
can’t decide if I should lay you or Jack off.”

And she looks at him and says “Well I have to catch a bus, so i suggest
you jack off.”

What’s the difference between a dead dog in the middle of the road and a dead black dude in the middle of the road?

The dog has skid marks in front of it.



© 2015 ijokedb.com