Many of you (if there are actually any readers) are familiar with the "rock, paper, scissors" game for making trivial decisions when there's a disagreement between two people. That game, I argue, is based on a faulty premise:
1: Scissors cut paper, so scissors win over paper.
2: Rocks crush scissors, so rocks win over scissors.
3: Paper can cover a rock, so paper wins over rock.
Paper covers rock? In the first two scenarios, the losing item is destroyed--the scissors shear the paper into two pieces, the rock crushes the scissors to bits--but paper "covers up" the rock?????
I fail to see how being covered by a piece of paper is all that traumatic a defeat, or how simply covering a rock with a piece of paper establishes supremacy over the rock. While I probably would not like to be covered up by a piece of paper (oh...the indignity!), I'd much prefer an unsolicited paper covering to being cut in two or smashed to bits.