Jokes due to misunderstood definitions

Wo Mei and smell the flowers, lie on the branch and wave the bell, invite the bedroom to sleep, the bedroom through the spring green, the bedroom bamboo, the bedroom through the spring bamboo.

A Chinese teacher read aloud an ancient poem by Lu You entitled "Wo Chun" for the students, and asked the students to dictate it, and the Chinese teacher read it aloud as follows, and one student dictated the following, "Wo Chun" ("I am stupid") Dark plum and ghost flower (I have no culture), lying on the branch (I have a very low IQ), Yao Wen lying like water (to ask who I am), easy to see through the spring green (a big stupid donkey), the shore is like green (I am a donkey), the shore is like a green (I am a donkey), the shore is like a green (I am a stupid donkey)!

There are too many jokes made because of the wrong meaning, and there are too many such things, and the brain is relatively dull, and sometimes it can't react, and if the response is slow, it will also take what others say as another meaning, and it will scold others and look innocent.

Sometimes the meaning of a sentence can be divided into two kinds, when I am joking with a friend, he obviously means this, I understand this kind of embarrassment, Chinese culture is broad and profound, sometimes I really have to figure out the meaning of a sentence.

I remember meeting my new roommates after signing up as a college freshman, and although we are from a province, I don't understand their dialect. When I saw them chatting with a son, I was very confused, and it was popular to call other people's sons these days? It led me to guess there, and later I found out that it was the boy's meaning.

Once, when I was in a meeting, I saw the leader waving to me from afar, I thought he was asking me to go out and wait for him, and then I went out directly, and finally when the leader came out, he said to me, didn't you see me calling you just now? As a result, you are fine, and you just push the door open and leave.

This is philosophically one of the two conundrum of empiricism. The first problem is Hume's problem, which refers to the fact that individual experience does not prove the universal necessity truth, i.e., that experiments can only tell us what we have been and what we are now, but whether it will be so in the future has no logical basis. The second difficulty is the example given by the landlord, that is, for any empirical fact, there is a problem of interpretation, and the same fact can even support and oppose a certain theory, and the key is how to interpret it.

In the case of the landlord itself, we can say that the spider did not run because it did not run without feet, but we can also think like the expert that the spider did not hear the sound and therefore did not run. The problem with all this is that we are not spiders, and we cannot know the real reason why spiders do not run through rational intuition, but only by making a judgment about everything that we have observed by perceptual intuition, and the judgment itself cannot be logically falsified as long as it does not violate the law of contradiction.

Therefore, there is no logical error in the conclusion of this expert, and we can only give empirical refutations, but not logical rebuttals.

This question has little to do with philosophy. This is because the correctness of the law of cause and effect and the law of induction has been tacitly acquiesced in scientific experiments. The "mistake" of this expert is not in formal logic, but in not following the principle of induction.

Cutting off the leg is "yes" to remove the auditory organ, but at the same time, the running organ is also removed, and there are two influencing factors in the two experiments, which cannot be compared and cannot be generalized.

Isn't it a moral to cover your ears and steal the bell! I don't have feet, and I can't move no matter how I hear them.