/lit/ - Literature

>>21866496
The fact that a few exceptions exist means conversely that the rule applies most of the time, hence it is a good guiding principle.

>>21866496
An event with 2 known distinct instances has an exception and a rule.

>>21866496
Here:
There's one black sheep.
So it follows that the following rule is true: not all sheep are white.

>>21866496
How can there be an exception without a rule? Just think about the meaning of the word. Exception of what?

>>21866649
Exception is a bit more specific. The night is not an exception to the day. But a night where days last 500 hours is an exception although i'll concede that it's a matter of perception too.

>>21866700
The saying doesn't imply that all rules have an exception.

>>21866496
OP was always a faggot, but not today

>>21866613
Almost every rule has exceptions. "Sheep are white" is a true statement, with the rare exception of black sheep. The same applies for "negroes are dumb", and "girls don't have penises".

>>21866725
A rule without an exception would be an exception to the rule.

>>21866508
>>21866786
These two exceptions prove the rule that most on this board are imbeciles.
i.e. the fact that you can identify something as an exception means that you have identified a rule

>>21866754
>Almost every rule has exceptions.
what about
>Almost every rule has exceptions.
?

>>21866798
Already refuted
See: >>21866700

>>21866518
If 50% of all instances do not apply to the rule, how can you call them exceptions?

>>21866786
kek, also true.

>>21866810
>>Almost every rule has exceptions
It's not a rule, but a statment. Like water is wet and fire is hot.

>>21866857
By rule, water is wet and fire is hot.

It’s a principle of western jurisprudence. For example, if you post a sign at a checkpoint, “Vehicles with appropriate stickers are not required to stop,” it is considered a proof that vehicles without them are required to stop. The principle it should be noted is not universal. iIslamic for example shares the assumption of western jurisprudence that anything not explicitly illegal is legal by default, and stating an exception per se does not prove the rule. Rather the rule must be stated first and exceptions can be specified.

>>21866863
I got an ice burn once and lava is a liquid that is not wet. How about that

>>21866857
>Its not a rule, but a statement
Semantics, shmamantics, romantics. You're just evading his point by using a different word, but the point still stands.

>>21866700
>>21866819
the day is not a rule

>>21866496
a specific exception proofs a general rule

It's just a figure of speech. It actually means "There is always an exception. It doesn't negate the rule."

>>21866496
It's simple
The fact that an exception exists means that most of the time the opposite happens right?
If 999/1000 times you throw a grenade and it explodes that is obviously the rule. The rule being "grenades explode". And if 1/1000 times it doesn't explode that is obviously the exception. The exception to the rule is "occasionally grenades don't explode".
The phrase "occasionally grenades don't explode" implies that grenades usually explode. Hence the exception proves the rule.

>>21866496
Nobody understands what this phrase actually means.

Rule: 9/10 sheep are white, but every tenth sheep is black.

The black sheep are the exceptions that prove the rule: they prove the rule because the exceptions are a part of the rule itself. Therefore, every tenth sheep that is black is an exception that proves the rule.

>>21866824
If an instance is 50-50 then it’s not a rule or an exception. A rule happens more often than an exception.

>>21867031
Water is wet is a synthetic truth, a statement about the world. Logical deductions such as >>21866613 are analytic truths.

>>21866496
“Prove” in earlier English meant “test”. The phrase used to mean “exception that tests the rule”. But “prove” changed in meaning and people continued to use the idiom despite it no longer making any sense.

>>21867919
Ah so it's like the "pursuit of happiness" where happiness means something like unfetteredness.

>>21866496
the exception illustrates the rule in negative: as you explain how the exception is actually possible, you are showing all the points that make the rule, which are usually implicit when you simply follow the rule.

>>21867919
Came here to say this. A sense of the word "prove" that isn't common anymore.

>>21867925
psyop post

>>21866810
Yes, dipshit, that's why I specifically used the word 'almost'

>>21866496
"No parking between 3:00AM to 7:00AM" is the exception (no parking at these times) which proves the rule (parking is allowed here)

>>21870243
literally opened this thread to post this exact example in a different form. a sign that says “no parking on wednesdays” implies you can park the rest of the week

>>21870818
your example is better, kudos

>>21867919
>>21869386
You're both idiots. It's a direct translation from Latin exceptio probat regulam. The namefag already explained what it means.

>>21866981
lava isn't water. Ice isn't fire.

>>21870243
>>21870818
wait, an exception is not simply a moment where the rule doestn temporarily apply but a case where the actual opposite takes place.

so if you have a rule that prohibits for instance eating a certain kind of food in a certain moment, the exception would be a moment where it becomes, not only possible but mandatory to eat it.

such exception would illustrate the rule, not in the simple eating, but in the whole context that makes it now possible and mandatory, which will sharply contrast with the other contexts where it is habitually prohibited.

a simple pause in the rule is not an exception, or if you want it could be called a passive exception, whereas a real or active one is when the opposite of it is prescribed. in your example it would be hard to fit cause itd be something like: 'obligatory parking here between so and so'.

>>21869403
Be serious

>>21871170
People ignore tripfags, which is a shame because they sometimes do good, especially on /lit/.

>>21871204
>an exception is not simply a moment where the rule doestn temporarily apply but a case where the actual opposite takes place.
now where did you get that from?

>>21866496
Exceptions are outside the norm

>>21871204
>not only possible but mandatory
There's still time to delete this post. A brave take, but, unfortunately, the most retarded in the thread.
Consider the following states:
>forbidden
>[ no explicit rule ]
>allowed
>mandatory

For anyone too lazy to read the thread, here are the ANSWERS:
>>21870243
>>21870818
to dumbify it even more:
>the existance of an exception proves that a rule EXISTS (because what would you make exceptions from? duh)

The exception is where real life exists. Rules are just abstractions.