New York approves Same Sex Marriage.Follow

Good evening!

The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies -- that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms -- of the type so often committed by my wife.

"All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood."

This is, of course, pure bullsh*t! Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition. Consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more."

This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home.

"Why not?" I will ask.

"Because I have been ******** the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made.

"But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of ******** the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the ******** is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got."

"You don't love me any more!" she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms!"

"I will give you one after you have got me my supper!" I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat.

"@#%^ supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt ...

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell, sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it IS in the same sense that Mount Everest IS, or that Alma Cogan ISN'T.

Goodnight.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2011 8:29pm by lolgaxe

I vote we start saying LOGIC! in the same way we currently say SCIENCE!



Vote now or forever hold your piece. (cwutididthar?)

Protip: Pedal and peddle don't mean the same thing.

Lolgaxe is the winner of ONE INTERNET.

And I wasn't disputing that.





1. You misquoted, which should have been blatantly obvious to you. Did you really think that 83% of the Army didn't have a high school diploma or GED equivalent?

2. The drops of the standards of recruitment vary if we're at war. It's a historical pattern that you can look up if you want. Since we're a volunteer Army, recruiting standards drop during war time and bonuses and incentives rise. As we leave war, the standards go back up, bonuses goes away and the dirt bags are kicked out. I'm not equating homosexuals as dirtbags, but that's the like when people "come out" during or before a deployment, they make them serve their deployment, then kick them out when they get back. The military WILL use you as number, that doesn't mean that you're the standard.

3. Standardized tests only test how well you can take that particular test and nothing else.

4. You have no idea on the difficulty on the exam to know if "30" or "50" is even good or what it represents. Most people that I know, took the ASVAB during school with no preparation just to get out of class. That's exactly what I did. I had no clue what it was. Others didn't and I'm sure many of them didn't even take it seriously, since they were just wanting to get out of class. People have study classes months out with practice tests and retakes on other exams such as the ACT/SAT/GRE/LSAT.

Most people that I've talked to didn't actually study for the ASVAB, they just took it. For the longest, I believed the ASVAB to be a recruiting tool disguised as a test, just to get your point of contact and tell you how awesome you scored on the exam.

5. Lowering the minimum score doesn't equate to everyone receiving that score. Your link said as low as 26 with a WAIVER. That means, 26 isn't the standard, but for certain scenarios, one can still be accepted with a 26 score and a waiver.



No problem. And I'll stand by my statement that you're ignorant and have nothing to back up your claim. For starters, I'm sure you just looked that information up, which means that you didn't know any of that before you made your opinion(ignoring my counters above).

Secondly, what are you comparing that too? Where are the stats of civilian scores? How can you measure the intelligence of the military based on an exam that primarily only the military takes with no scores of the people outside the military?

You're just being ignorant and prejudice. Anyone can google a stat to support their claim, hence why I argued against statistics. Here's a stat from 2006.




You haven't provided any reason why you established your belief that majority of the U.S. Army is "below intelligent". You just made some crap up and went with it. That's cool, just don't proclaim it as being the truth.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 3:58pm by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 4:00pm by Almalieque