Et tu, PeeWee

(slow burn)

You actually got cash from Badbobby

Not just a bunch of Slatten's IOUs

I am reminded of this paradox often when I find myself once again caught up in discourse on OPP. Posters seem to assume the qualities of both the irresistible force and/or the immoveable object.

The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox/shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.

The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises: that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for contradiction (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally: 'spear-shield'). This term originates from a story in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾, "from each-other spear shield"), or "self-contradictory".
Another ancient example illustrating this theme can be found in the story of the Teumessian fox, who can never be caught, and the hound Laelaps, who never misses what it hunts. Realizing the paradox, Zeus turns both creatures into static stars.

The problems associated with this paradox can be applied to any other conflict between two abstractly defined extremes that are opposite.

One of the answers generated by seeming paradoxes like these is that there is no contradiction – that there is a false dilemma. Dr. Christopher Kaczor suggested that the need to change indicates a lack of power rather than the possession thereof, and as such a person who was omniscient would never need to change their mind – not changing the future would be consistent with omniscience rather than contradicting it.

In the same way, an unstoppable force, an object or force with infinite inertia, would be consistent with the definition of an immovable object, in that they would be one and the same. Any object whose momentum or motion cannot be changed is an immovable object, and it would halt any object that moved relative to it, making it an unstoppable force.

A deterministic universe may contain more than one of such forces/objects as long as they are never determined to meet in the entire history of such a universe. Indeed, in the context of such a universe, one could redefine the words "irresistible" and "immovable" to "is never successfully resisted" and "is never successfully moved" (within the fixed history of said deterministic universe) instead of the counterfactual possibilities. This is similar to the Novikov self-consistency principle of the grandfather paradox in time-travel scenarios.

哎呀我的天呀。。这个矛盾怎么这么复杂。。

反正别想是矛复杂的事，或者是盾复杂的事。。。这个是与人复不复杂有关系

T***slation: Dear Lord...How complicated this contradiction is.. Anyways, don't consider it a question of the spear being complicated, or the shield being complicated..This is a question of people being complicated...