Can't argue with logic.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Athelwulf, Apr 7, 2007.

  1. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    I was tempted to put this in the Physics & Math forum, but I decided against it.

    Let m stand for a man and w stand for a woman.

    Because it's one man, m=1.

    Let m+w=M, where M is marriage.

    If men are equal to women, m=w, then the following two equations are true:

    m+m=M
    w+w=M

    There you go. Pure logic. Can't argue with pure logic.

    Discuss.
     
    Snowshy likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. timmbuktwo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    436
    But men aren't equal to women .that's pure logic too.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    This is very silly.
     
    Snowshy likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    The Genji is confused
     
  8. timmbuktwo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    436
    Are you a gay activist wulf?
     
  9. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    Your logic is flawed. First off... you failed to define what it means for men and women to be equal. Two, you fail to explain how man = 1. Three, you failed to define addition. Four, what about polygamy? Your "logic" makes polygamy better than just regular marriage.
     
  10. timmbuktwo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    436
    I think wulf's logic is slightly "off centre" .
     
  11. timmbuktwo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    436
    And im glad it wasn't in the math forum , 'cause you would have got quite a bit more .....shall we say .... "questionable" responses.
     
  12. Beryl WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    285
    I've heard the sexism is linked to being opposed to same-sex marriage... the logic there being that people who think of one gender as inferior to the other are therefore used to one member of a marriage being inferior to the other, so it seems weird and alien to them for both members of a marriage to be of the same gender and therefore equal. Whereas, if you're used to the members of a marriage being equal because the genders are equal, it doesn't seem like a big deal for both members of a marriage to be of the same gender.
     
  13. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    One man and one woman are legally equal. Each counts as one in the census. Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman. Each can hold jobs. Each can run for public office. Each can legally do anything the other can (of course this excludes fundamental biological functions like ovulating or making sperm, but they're inconsequential). Neither is a fraction of a person nor more than one person.

    Besides, don't you value people's individual merits? Or do you only see penes and vaginae?

    And you misplaced your periods.

    Logic and math are silly? Is that anti-intellectualism talking?

    Where did I lose you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean am I an activist that is gay, or an activist for the equal treatment of gays in the eyes of the law? And for that matter, what do you consider an activist?

    Men and women are legally equal. Each can vote, and that vote counts as one whether it's cast by a man or a woman. Each can hold jobs. Each can do anything the other can (excluding fundamental biological functions, but they're inconsequential).

    Because it represents a man. Not two.

    I've never had to define addition on my math homework. Because it's predefined.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's a man and a woman. "And" is addition.

    What if it is?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm not necessarily saying it is. But I'm not ready to say it isn't either.

    Yup, pretty much. To sexists, either m>w, or, much less commonly, w>m. Presupposing the former since it's had a more real impact on Western society and thus is more relevant, if m+w=M, then m+m>M, and w+w<M. It just doesn't work.

    But of course, neither sex is greater than the other.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    okay. no problem.
    so M equals 2, what's next?
     
  15. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Not a felon.
    Nor illegal immigrants.
    So, only voting adults can logically engage in gay marriage?

    What if they're not registered to vote?
     
  16. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    What do you mean, what's next?

    I just presented that as one reason I claim men and women are equal. Not being able to vote doesn't disqualify you as a person. Perhaps a man who can vote and a woman who can't don't have completely equal legal standing in their own particular respective rights, but the point is that suffrage applies to men and women equally.

    I can add that felons and illegal immigrants lost their right to vote regardless of their sex. So it's not an issue of the person's sex. Suffrage is still applying equally to both sexes. So I think the points are moot.

    But thanks for pointing this out. Now in the future I can say it differently: that the laws of suffrage disregard sex.

    Also, it's interesting that you mention voter registration. I've seen mention of an idea to cut down on the bureaucracy of the voting process by tying voting to your social security account. Your SS account is already used for many things, including identification. If your SS account was tied to your vote too, then it could automatically indicate that you're of voting age once you turn eighteen, thereby making registration unnecessary. There are further details. I'll say them in another thread sometime so I don't derail this one. I gotta find the link to where I read it anyway.
     
  17. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,242
    Indeed, you can't. There was no logic - pure or otherwise - whatever displayed in your arguement.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Have a nice day.
     
  18. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    I appreciate constructive comments; I do not appreciate unhelpful comments. Please give me details. Please tell me how there is no logic. Tell me how stating a mathematical truism isn't logical.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't know.
    you mentioned the fact that 1+1=2 like there some big mystery to be revealed later.

    i believe you would have stirred up more if you somehow "proved" that water doesn't flow downhill.
     
  20. Possumking I think, I am? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    385
    I like your argument, Athelwulf --it's mighty clever.

    Regarding polygamy, a higher number (i.e m+w+w=M+1) doesn't seem to necessarily suggest "better." A higher number could just as easily be "worse" if achieving M is the ideal.
     
  21. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Heh, you can't argue with logic
     
  22. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    let's give it a try anyway
    1) I fit inside my pants
    2) My pants fits inside a suitcase

    3) I can fit inside my suitcase?
     
  23. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Yes. We can always cut you up in pieces.
     

Share This Page