The problem I see here is that arguing that some concepts are ridiculous and therefore shouldn't be supported by the rules overlooks the fact that there are other, equally ridiculous concepts which are supported by the rules. In fact, the rules give rise to such concepts which would otherwise very likely not exist (Assplomancer, anyone? Trouserfang Dwarf?)
While those are extreme examples, there are others which (IMO) aren't much less comically ludicrous, and yet which tend to see actual use because the rules support them. "The rules say it works!" lends a veneer of reasonability to what would otherwise be a patently unreasonable concept.
