Talk:Deepity

Paper shredder
The article states " the statement could be interpreted to mean the zygote is a human person; this is false".

This is an ideological assertion, but it is presented as a bald fact. The argument that follows, that a person can no more be a single cell than a paper shredder, is nothing but a blatant assertion mixed with a nonsensical non sequitur.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 75.118.51.238 / talk / contribs

Love Trumps Hate (third meaning)
I'd always assumed the second meaning, instead of the apostrophe-adding "Love Trump's Hate", was "Love [that the set of people named 'Trump'] Hate". Such as "This is the love Trumps hate" or, in singular, "Love Trump Hates". Not sure if this is a valid interpretation, and/or should be added Onychoprion (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Or Love "Trump hates" - if he dislikes it go for it (as with the Paris climate change agreement).
 * Deepity has some value as a trite comment and 'work out the logic in this' - and 'creative misinterpretation/reinterpretation' can be interesting/amusing. 31.51.113.135 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these secondary meanings ever get used. This example should probably be removed. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 72.160.48.39 / talk

Is the following another example of a deepity?
What about the sentence, "No matter where you go, there you are."?
 * Yup. 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Que sera, sera. Anna Livia (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Deepity the third

 * The first meaning is 'stating the (####) obvious'
 * The second meaning 'still waters run deep - but a puddle is also still' (till the infant jumps in it/the passing vehicle splashes it all over you).
 * The third aspect - 'why is this phrase an example of deepity - and what is the reworking that actually contains some meaning?' Anna Livia (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thought's materiality being 'trivially true'
Even if it's true that thought is material, it is absolutely not trivially true - this is a hugely controversial subject in the philosophy of mind, with compelling arguments on both sides of the debate.

Also, n.b. that the notion that thought 'supervenes' on or 'emerges from' material or physical processes is not equivalent to thought actually being material or physical.

Do in Dogma
I'm not sure I understand the point of this section or why it deserves it's only section even if it belongs on the page. Am I missing something? Mikecol05 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)