Printable View
I've been thinking for a while now. "How do I prove that girls are not the square root of evil?" My friend gave me the equation:
Girls=(Time)(Money)
Time=Money
Girls=Money ²
$=Evil
Girls= √Money ²
Girls=Evil
Where would the loop hole be in this equation to prove his theory wrong? Hhhmmm.
Because Girls=(Time)(x)
Let x=Money or Charisma or Appearance
depending on the girl, the variable changes. SOME girls are evil, but only about 1/3.
Eh, not sure I understand that made-up equation, but I've taken the advance placement course of Psychology and there's literature known as Odd Girl Out, the actual research, not the story. Within the pages, it claims that females are much more prone to what your friend calls, "evil." Why? Because males destroy each other from the outside, physically, and often get over grudges much quicker than girls do. Girls destroy each other from the inside, mentally and emotionally, and hold onto grudges. Not only that, but females are also more known to be manipulative of peoples' feelings and know how to work around them to get what they want or throw the individual to become an outcast, also known as blackmail.
You're pretty much saying your mom is evil.
october breath, before you ask us to prove that equation wrong, you ought to try proving it right. Just sayin'.
No, it does not. It gives examples and attempts to describe them, but the book does not report any actual relevant statistics on relationational aggression. It is not a psychological resource. Good insight for parents and teachers, sure, and maybe cause for further study into relational aggression, but the book itself is not research. Inferring that it is psychological literature is a bit of a stretch. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aki no iko
Bad Memory
So, you're basically asking people on an internet forum how to reply to a sexist (i.e. funny) joke?
I love when children don't contribute anything to a thread, and instead post macro images so they can be cool on the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sano
In regard to the joke, it's a statement of cost, not what it requires to attract the girl.
The hole, if any, is in "money=evil", which is not necessarily true. Money can do and bring a lot of good.
[quote=Gjallarhorn;2371889]I love when children don't contribute anything to a thread, and instead post macro images so they can be cool on the internet.
Well not exactly. I posted that picture with no attempt at looking cool at all. I could care less about being cool on the internet. Merely felt like a picture was needed.
I believe you because this makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardy
@Gjallarhorn: You're wrong. We (or personally I) didn't post a macro to look "cool".
And calling people "children" does not make you look cool either.
I can't even tell if that was positive or negative when you said that lol.. But getting back to the topic, is your equation for real? Its kind hard to pin point if you just made this up for fun, or trying to be sexist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capernicus
Sorry my mom is a woman not a girl. So that counts her out.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2012
Yeah, I agree. I just thought it would be an interesting thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forgotten Show
Nevermind, the joke is too obscure to even promote a remote chuckle. Please remove this post.
Your friend forgot a key tenet: Girls provide Sexual IntercourseQuote:
Originally Posted by october breath
Soo..
Girls = (Time)(Money) + Sexual Intercourse
From here, the theory is essentially obsolete. The fact that girls are evil becomes irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure I saw this on...oh...chain letters, other boards, 4 chan, etc.
It was funny when I was in high school. Girls aren't evil, and they're not the root of all evil. Some girls are better people than others. Even if they've snubbed you, laughed at your deformities, puked on your shoes when you've asked them out, or sacrificed a puppy to satan to scare you off, they're not evil.
If girls are the square root of evil then are guys the derivative of insensitive (or jerk)?
Btw, I agree with the statement that some girls are manipulative, but then so are some guys.
Well, if girls are money^2, and time is money, then girls are time^2, but relativity implies that time and space are interchangeable, which means that girls are space^2 ~ a 2 dimensional area.
Though I guess one could use this to argue that there's nothing to girls but a surface, but still. It's a questionable result, since girls are very much 3 dimensional.
Proof by contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eris
The fallacy here is The Undistributed MiddleQuote:
Originally Posted by Capernicus
Take for example:
Penguins = Black and White
Zebras = Black and White
=> Penguins = Zebras
Black and White is the middle term. In the case of the of the OP, there are many middle terms, "money" being one of the main ones.
In threads like these, where the topic is basically some lame chain email joke with nothing to really discuss, the best way to success is to completely ignore the original poster and blatantly derail the thread into another topic.
while i realize that this thread is made more in jest than anything, i have to say.... isn't 1/3 kind of lowballing the figure a little bit? your cup is def half full.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanosuke23
also, the older you get the more you will realize that your mom's are also evil. they aren't going to kill you because they need you to spread the seed. duh
One could argue that the error is using equalities. Penguins are not equal to the property "black and white"; they have the property . So one should express it as a predicate, and not an equality. The problem is that natural language isn't very exact: Words like "is" can be taken to mean a variety of things depending on context (such as, "is equal to", "has the property", "is a member of the subset").Quote:
Originally Posted by Wio
Like
black&white(penguins) = true
black&white(zebras) = true
or, using set notation
{penguins,zebras}⊆{x|x is black and white}
From these two equivalent statements, this it does not follow that penguins = zebras