the beaver tongue twister

the beaver tongue twister is stupid. it goes: "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood."

Now typing hell aside, I'd like to meet whoever came up with this stupid tongue twister and voice my complaints. This is literally circle logic.

How much air could a person breathe if a person could breathe air? As much air as a person could breathe if a person could breathe some air. 

How long could my pet goldfish live if my pet goldfish could live under my care? AS long as my pet goldfish could live if my pet goldfish could live under my care (spoiler: they died).

Is anyone getting this yet? Does this absurd line of thinking, is anyone seeing how stupid it is??

Next up I would like to complain about the word "chuck". I'm pretty sure you can't use it in this sentence, "chuck wood", because it's literally not how you use it? I went through a bunch of dictionaries and couldn't find a single example where you could possibly use the word.

Let's look at google's definition:

YES I'M SURE THAT OUR BOY CHUCK THE WOODCHUCK IS GOING TO BE "THROIWING WOOD" IF HE COULD "THROW WOOD". LET'S HAVE A COMPETITION AND SEE WHO CAN CHUCK WOOD THE FARTHEST, YES THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chuck

is not as helpful either, since everyone can pat or tap wood. In fact the whole tongue twister rides on "IF" a woodchuckj could chuck wood, so it IMPLIES that the woodchuck CANNOT CHUCK WOOD. 

AND DID YOU KNOW? A woodchuck is actually just a groundhog.

boi

THIS BOY CAN DEFINITELY THROW SOME WOOD, OR TAP IT, OR GIVE UP ON WOOD, OR ANY OTHER DEFINITION YOU CAN FIND OF "CHUCK" AS A VERB. 

The only thing that remotely made sense is that the woodchuck is an actual animal. 

I rest my case. This is the stupidest tongue twister alive. Whoever made this up deserves to be put under medieval stretching torture.