# Can't argue with logic.

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

1. ### AthelwulfRest 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.

3. ### timmbuktwoRegistered Senior Member

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

5. ### Prince_JamesPlutarch (Mickey's Dog)Registered Senior Member

Messages:
9,214
This is very silly.

Snowshy likes this.

7. ### GenjiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,285
The Genji is confused

8. ### timmbuktwoRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
436
Are you a gay activist wulf?

9. ### AbsaneRocket SurgeonValued 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. ### timmbuktwoRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
436
I think wulf's logic is slightly "off centre" .

11. ### timmbuktwoRegistered 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. ### BerylWWAD 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. ### AthelwulfRest 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?

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

Where did I lose you?

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.

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

What if it is?

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. ### leopoldValued Senior Member

Messages:
17,455
okay. no problem.
so M equals 2, what's next?

15. ### invert_nexusZe do caixaoValued 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. ### AthelwulfRest 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. ### KilljoyPropelling The Farce!!Valued Senior Member

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

Have a nice day.

18. ### AthelwulfRest 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. ### leopoldValued 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. ### PossumkingI 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. ### RomanBannedBanned

Messages:
11,560
Heh, you can't argue with logic

22. ### orcotValued 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. ### spuriousmonkeyBannedBanned

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