The moderators have reflaired this post as a **casual thought**.
Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional.
Please review [each flair's requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/requirements) for more information.
^^This ^^automated ^^system ^^is ^^currently ^^being ^^worked ^^on.
^^If ^^it ^^did ^^something ^^wrong, ^^please ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
Something like this really happened. My high school golf team consistently ranked last in our division. There was a different school in a different division whose team also consistently ranked last in theirs. One year, that school challenged us to see who the real worst team was.
We won. Meaning we “lost” for the title of worst golf team.
This reminds me of a question that used to float around in my mind when I was a kid:
If a bracket style single elimination coin flip game narrowed 1024 people down to 1 winner, it would be identifying the luckiest player out of all 1024. However, could you design a set up that identified the unluckiest player?
Yes. If you kept pairing winners against winners and losers against losers, there will eventually be one person who has lost all flips, just like there is one person who has won all flips.
It just always struck me that from a certain point of view, it would still be pretty lucky to lose that much in a row, and eventually, you would kind of just be cheering for yourself to lose, essentially flipping the rules of the game.
While I understand what you're getting at, the trolley problem is a moral dilemma pointing out the flaws of utilitarianism, which is rather different from a subjective perspective on what is lucky or unlucky.
Just a small addendum: the trolley problem(and its numerous adaptations) has been used to point out the flaws of essentially all modern moral philosophies, not just utilitarism (although it was the first "target"). It's just an interesting problem in general, mainly because we have yet to find a moral philosophy that makes the trolley problems easy to solve while still feeling "right" from a moral standpoint.
I really love the trolley problem, because everyone seems to be quick to think the solution is simple (eg: you should do whatever you can to save the most people, so pull the lever!), but then it's easy to come up with variations that throws this moral rule out of the window (eg: does that mean we should actively kill healthy people so that we can harvest their organs and save 5 others?)
Some years ago there was the "Not Terribly Good Club of Great Britain" for all those people who were ordinary and never achieved great things. The president of the club wrote a book, "The Book of Heroic Failures", celebrating all the ways in which people attempted great things (or even ordinary things) and failed to achieve them.
The book became a bestseller. The author had to resign from the club.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures
Does anyone else find this infinitely more funny because The Biggest Loser was already the name of a television show; thereby, giving this post an entirely different and unintentional meaning?
And, last, obviously.
He would come first because the challenges would be based on failure. It's a competition to see who fails the hardest. Those who succeed will come last.
**The rules in /r/Showerthoughts are changing.**
Please read [this announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/1do3rkx/we_asked_you_told_us_and_we_listened_welcome_to/?) for more details.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Showerthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A YouTube channel here did a short series of the most average man, out of the five of them. At the end of the series the guy with the most points thought he won. But of course, number 3 won, because that is the most average.
So if you win the best loser competition, you’re not the biggest loser.
I would always come in first and end in last. Although I would most likely be 2nd or 3rd because people would go out of therebway to make sure I would never finish in first.
I think we need more information. Is this a competition of losers to see who is the biggest loser? If so, our biggest loser wins ofc
Or, is it a competition where all of the contestants are losers, but the competition itself is say a basketball game. If this is the case, our Biggest Loser comes in last place
I'm assuming the former but the question as written leaves it unclear
A contest of losers is a bit of an oxymoron because of this exact reason. Whoever wins the contest can't be, by definition, the "biggest loser" because they won, and even if you define "the biggest loser" as the person who loses that competition, that makes them "win" (thus contradicting the title). The moment you define a "winner" for that title, it stops making sense.
Thus "the biggest loser" wouldn't even participate. Or would participate and then get disqualified for some dumb reason. Or the judges will forgot they even exist and wouldn't rank them.
First, because losing the competition would result in being the best at losing. But this would make the first the biggest loser meaning the biggest loser would actually come out last.
The loser-paradox
I think there was a biggest lower champions seasons but it's been so long I can't remember how it ended. I would try starting there. I used to love that show l, I would get a big bag of fast food l to guilty pleasure eat while they worked there asses off.
He'd come in 2nd.
Everyone else aren't as big of loosers and 1st place fucking managed to at leas bag that pitiful trophy. No 2 couldn't even win at being the biggest fucking looser yet is still more of a looser than all other loosers on the show.
He, while being the actual biggest loser, qould place second because of some technicality.
He would outwardly not be the biggest loser, but factually be so.
This is like a category theory problem. The solution is that there is always a bigger context in which he can be the biggest loser.
Reminds me of a singing ingredient competition from years ago like American idol. Except they purposely moved the worst singer forward as if they did well. Then, at the end, they revealed to the "winner" what the show was really about.
Got that whole double negative dilemma going on with this shower thought.
Can’t be a loser if you are a winner, so the winner has to be the loser but then they win so didn’t lose.
Ok, this is a subject that I am an authority on, I'm a total loser. I fail at everything, I literally\* never win. Now apparently, its more of a loser trait to be wrong than to actually fail, so if I tell everybody how Im going to fail then it doesn't happen and my delight is ruined by being proven wrong.
So the answer is the biggest loser will fail at what ever they set out to do, win or lose.
Example: If one were to take all the biggest losers and have them do a 100 yard dash, then the racetrack would be hit during the event by a rouge asteroid killing everyone with in a 20 mile radius of the hypocenter. The loser kingdom is like that.
P.S. Slowly going insane trying to figure out a way to do the opposite of my intention.
\* *\[* ***lit***-er-uh-lee \] - actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.
Am I the only person who thinks he would come first? If he’s first, and somehow wins, and that makes him lose the loser competition because you’re not supposed to be a winner, only a loser?
But imagine if he came first, and still lost lmfaooo loserrr
The moderators have reflaired this post as a **casual thought**. Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional. Please review [each flair's requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/requirements) for more information. ^^This ^^automated ^^system ^^is ^^currently ^^being ^^worked ^^on. ^^If ^^it ^^did ^^something ^^wrong, ^^please ^^message ^^the ^^moderators.
That’s a tough one. Let us know how you place.
Well the rest of us are the winners, that's for sure. Alabama loves Mississippi because it saves them from being number 50 in so many rankings.
As the saying goes "thank God for Mississippi"
Love, Alabama, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
Damn, that's harsh.
Something like this really happened. My high school golf team consistently ranked last in our division. There was a different school in a different division whose team also consistently ranked last in theirs. One year, that school challenged us to see who the real worst team was. We won. Meaning we “lost” for the title of worst golf team.
You lost at losing.
r/MurderedByWords
Reddit doesn’t disappoint
Results are in. WHe was the third second place.
Damn man what did OP ever do to you or your mom?
Hmm. Probably get disqualified.
But if your disqualified from a losers' competition, then you are no longer a loser, right?
Yep, he even lost the title of loser
He has absolutely nothing! Nothing!
Not even a loser, what a nothing.
that makes so much sense.
Loser!
'no professionals allowed'
This! <3
He'd never make it to the competition. Fucking loser can't even get that right.
This reminds me of a question that used to float around in my mind when I was a kid: If a bracket style single elimination coin flip game narrowed 1024 people down to 1 winner, it would be identifying the luckiest player out of all 1024. However, could you design a set up that identified the unluckiest player?
Yes. If you kept pairing winners against winners and losers against losers, there will eventually be one person who has lost all flips, just like there is one person who has won all flips.
It just always struck me that from a certain point of view, it would still be pretty lucky to lose that much in a row, and eventually, you would kind of just be cheering for yourself to lose, essentially flipping the rules of the game.
Lucky and unlucky are two sides of the same coin(lol) and the difference is a matter of perspective. It's like trying to "solve" the trolley problem.
While I understand what you're getting at, the trolley problem is a moral dilemma pointing out the flaws of utilitarianism, which is rather different from a subjective perspective on what is lucky or unlucky.
Just a small addendum: the trolley problem(and its numerous adaptations) has been used to point out the flaws of essentially all modern moral philosophies, not just utilitarism (although it was the first "target"). It's just an interesting problem in general, mainly because we have yet to find a moral philosophy that makes the trolley problems easy to solve while still feeling "right" from a moral standpoint. I really love the trolley problem, because everyone seems to be quick to think the solution is simple (eg: you should do whatever you can to save the most people, so pull the lever!), but then it's easy to come up with variations that throws this moral rule out of the window (eg: does that mean we should actively kill healthy people so that we can harvest their organs and save 5 others?)
First episode of What’s The Right Thing To Do https://youtu.be/kBdfcR-8hEY
I feel like there are names for all of these
What if you get kicked in the nuts every time you lost, and got $10 each time you won?
Jokes on you, I’m into that shit!
You didn’t even acknowledge homie for clearing that up for you
Some years ago there was the "Not Terribly Good Club of Great Britain" for all those people who were ordinary and never achieved great things. The president of the club wrote a book, "The Book of Heroic Failures", celebrating all the ways in which people attempted great things (or even ordinary things) and failed to achieve them. The book became a bestseller. The author had to resign from the club. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures
Neither, he would come *second*, because he's a loser!
2nd and 3rd get medals. He'd come in 4th.
Does anyone else find this infinitely more funny because The Biggest Loser was already the name of a television show; thereby, giving this post an entirely different and unintentional meaning? And, last, obviously.
That wordplay kept me up at night as a kid
They'd come second. They can't even succeed at being the biggest loser.
“We apologize for the inconvenience, but the competition has been cancelled due to weather. All participants must still pay their entrance fee. “
My dyslexic brain just imploded lol!!
I don't think you know what dyslexia is, do you?
He’ll say the election was rigged regardless
Funniest reply on here. I’m guessing you’re from the US lol
2nd place of course. 2nd is "first loser"
If I punch myself and it hurts, am I weak or am I strong?
Strong physically, weak mentally.
you are stupid
Last, otherwise he wouldn't be the "biggest looser in the world".
Depends entirely on what he wants. Whatever it is, he’ll do the opposite of that.
He would come first because the challenges would be based on failure. It's a competition to see who fails the hardest. Those who succeed will come last.
He would get run over in the parking lot
We'll see what happens at the RNC.
**The rules in /r/Showerthoughts are changing.** Please read [this announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/1do3rkx/we_asked_you_told_us_and_we_listened_welcome_to/?) for more details. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Showerthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A YouTube channel here did a short series of the most average man, out of the five of them. At the end of the series the guy with the most points thought he won. But of course, number 3 won, because that is the most average. So if you win the best loser competition, you’re not the biggest loser.
I would always come in first and end in last. Although I would most likely be 2nd or 3rd because people would go out of therebway to make sure I would never finish in first.
He will come in second place!
they'd come in second. not even good enough for first place, not bad enough to be last. they're just that big of a loser
Neither — they’d get 2nd place.
Well, at the 2013 WBL comp, I came first, so the rest all came on me.
The biggest loser doesn’t mean he can’t win, he just has to lose more than the next guy.
Last because he can become the losers of all losers. The King of all Losers. The Losing Incarnate.
Depends on the competition. Is it for the most biggest loser or the least biggest loser?
The biggest loser is second place.
He'll come last, because he's a loser
You should check out [Superstar USA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstar_USA). It's kinda like that?
If you set out to lose and succeed, which have you done?
He would be the guy who came in second
That’s just the loser bracket.
2nd place, bc its 1st place for losers?
probably second, they'd be the first loser
I live by the motto “If you’re not first, you’re last”
Second place. Too much of a loser to win, but confirmed more of a loser than everyone else except the winner.
2nd, because that’s how the saying goes.
He will come fist and still complaining about the competition
2nd place. if you ain’t first you’re last
The lier paradox, work in the same circuit-like way.
He will be the biggest loser of losers
Only would be able to find out
If he's already the biggest loser, why bother going into a competition?
I think we need more information. Is this a competition of losers to see who is the biggest loser? If so, our biggest loser wins ofc Or, is it a competition where all of the contestants are losers, but the competition itself is say a basketball game. If this is the case, our Biggest Loser comes in last place I'm assuming the former but the question as written leaves it unclear
Gotta keep that streak!
Last, because (competition of loser ×last position)= Loser ²
Sounds like a maga convention
A contest of losers is a bit of an oxymoron because of this exact reason. Whoever wins the contest can't be, by definition, the "biggest loser" because they won, and even if you define "the biggest loser" as the person who loses that competition, that makes them "win" (thus contradicting the title). The moment you define a "winner" for that title, it stops making sense. Thus "the biggest loser" wouldn't even participate. Or would participate and then get disqualified for some dumb reason. Or the judges will forgot they even exist and wouldn't rank them.
Like strapping buttered toast to the back of a cat.
Do you feel you should have won? Second place is, after all, 1st placed loser.
He’s such a loser that he loses the competition of losers
depends how much weight he lost
I think they would be first
First, because losing the competition would result in being the best at losing. But this would make the first the biggest loser meaning the biggest loser would actually come out last. The loser-paradox
It depends how the organizers decide to assign points.
He'd be the only one to show up.
He would come last because he can't even win that.
Neither , he wouldn’t show up, because his bus will late or alarm clock will fail.
He wouldn't make it into the competition
I’d say second last, can’t even win the last place medal.
i love that the mods have a casual thought flair. they're finally telling people their ideas are mid
Can someone call boogie 2988 and find out
The actual world’s biggest loser would be whoever places second in that contest.
He gets disqualified for being a professional
I have an old acquaintance that did a monologue at a talent show. They were the only one in the monologue section. They got second place.
President. He/she becomes president.
I think I’ll be up all night with this one.
Last , if such a competition existed no one would win in it .
No matter what the circumstances are, the biggest loser is always the person who came second
Don't know. I am personally running in the procrastinating competion. I still have to register myself. We have until the end of June 2020 for it.
There was a tv show about this
Well he's the biggest loser, in competition with other losers... You've answered your own question buddy.
He’d lose, that’s for sure.
He'd get on the wrong bus/train/plane and miss the competition entirely
First, otherwise he's not the biggest loser in the world. The last one is just a loser but not the biggest.
He'd probably win by losing.
Bertrand Russell called. He wants his town barber back.
She would forget to show up.
I think there was a biggest lower champions seasons but it's been so long I can't remember how it ended. I would try starting there. I used to love that show l, I would get a big bag of fast food l to guilty pleasure eat while they worked there asses off.
I reckon the top spot in such a competition would not be referred to as 'winning'.
The biggest loser would be late to the event due to a series of unlucky events and be disqualified...
Read the medaka box manga to find out
Regardless of which loser comes in first or last, none of them will get sprinkles on their ice cream, because sprinkles are for winners!
He'd come in 2nd. Everyone else aren't as big of loosers and 1st place fucking managed to at leas bag that pitiful trophy. No 2 couldn't even win at being the biggest fucking looser yet is still more of a looser than all other loosers on the show.
A truly paradoxical showerthought!
He would be second, losing barely the biggest loser competition
That sounds like a dilemma lol
2nd place. 2nd is the first loser.
That reminds me of something Ben Crawshaw once said, “there’s something appealingly ironic about coming third in a mediocrity contest”.
He would come in first and the be immediately stripped of his title.
He, while being the actual biggest loser, qould place second because of some technicality. He would outwardly not be the biggest loser, but factually be so. This is like a category theory problem. The solution is that there is always a bigger context in which he can be the biggest loser.
It would have to be a competition of 3 people, and they would have to come second
Neither they would fall dead center
Reminds me of a singing ingredient competition from years ago like American idol. Except they purposely moved the worst singer forward as if they did well. Then, at the end, they revealed to the "winner" what the show was really about.
If the loser loses the competition, he'd be disqualified from it: if the loser wins the competition, he'd be the winner of losers' competition..
The biggest loser has to come last, even in a competition of losers.
Good question for my cunt neighbor
What's a forfeit count as?
Either way, good luck!!
They won't show up therefore making them the automatic loser no matter what
Last would be the coolest loser
Got that whole double negative dilemma going on with this shower thought. Can’t be a loser if you are a winner, so the winner has to be the loser but then they win so didn’t lose.
First and then he’d cause a paradox resulting in a tear in the space time continuum ending life as we know it
I guess this is paradox. If X is happening then Y won't happen and if Y won't happen then X won't happen. Am I correct? It confuses my brain, wth!
Or what about the obscurity of the middle....
Nah he'd pay the entry fee then totally forget to attend.
Tie for last place, all around
He'd place somewhere in the middle.
It’s like a 2nd place competition. Do you want 1st place or second? Would the second place trophy be larger than the first?
In this contest I think the "winner" would have to be whoever came in last. So both
They would be whatever the middle is so even in a competition of losers they are still only mediocre
The winning-est move is to not go at all.
No, but he'll be the largest.
Both as they are an overachiever In lazy.
Probably second place.
He would drop out from the competition because he thinks that he isn't good enough to win.
Welcome to Zeno's paradox!
We will see what they write on the Orange Turd’s grave.
Are you asking if a loser should win a competition?
Gives you a second table I kind of like it
This is the old Detroit Lions joke. If the NFL replaced the Super Bowl with a contest to see who was the worst team, the Lions would come in 2nd.
He's place last, because he can't even win that. Someone slightly less loserish would win.
If the biggest loser in the world won the competition, then they would no longer be the biggest loser in the world.
You have to come in last to get gold.
If the objective is to be a loser, then they’d win
Ok, this is a subject that I am an authority on, I'm a total loser. I fail at everything, I literally\* never win. Now apparently, its more of a loser trait to be wrong than to actually fail, so if I tell everybody how Im going to fail then it doesn't happen and my delight is ruined by being proven wrong. So the answer is the biggest loser will fail at what ever they set out to do, win or lose. Example: If one were to take all the biggest losers and have them do a 100 yard dash, then the racetrack would be hit during the event by a rouge asteroid killing everyone with in a 20 mile radius of the hypocenter. The loser kingdom is like that. P.S. Slowly going insane trying to figure out a way to do the opposite of my intention. \* *\[* ***lit***-er-uh-lee \] - actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy.
This is the kinda thought this sub exists for right here
If it is The Biggest Looser, then first, obviously.
Am I the only person who thinks he would come first? If he’s first, and somehow wins, and that makes him lose the loser competition because you’re not supposed to be a winner, only a loser? But imagine if he came first, and still lost lmfaooo loserrr
They would not show up. Not showing up would put you behind the last place individual.