Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 81381

[In Conservapedia's article on Sets, Application section]

Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = {a, b, c, d} and B = {a, b, c, e} is merely {a, b, c, d, e}, while the union of M (man) = {a, b, c, d} and W (woman) = {e, f, g, h} is {a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h}, which is a broader and more diverse set.

Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia 157 Comments [5/20/2011 3:29:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 238
Submitted By: Night Jaguar
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4 5 7
confused

huh?

what?

5/20/2011 3:38:16 AM



fack off

5/20/2011 3:38:37 AM

Diatryma

What is he on about? I read "stinking" example at first, well...

5/20/2011 3:47:45 AM

aaa

This is Andy trying to sound all book-smart and only showing just how lame his arguments are.

5/20/2011 3:53:15 AM

The_L

This makes no fucking sense. Man and woman are not sets of variables--they are PEOPLE.

5/20/2011 3:55:04 AM

nutbunny

is {a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h}, which is a broader and more diverse set.

Yay! Let's celebrate gigantic hermaphrodites. Diversity!

5/20/2011 3:58:24 AM

Dexter

Group sex FTW!

5/20/2011 3:58:58 AM



What does this even mean?
And the point of gay marriage is equality, not 'sets'. Whatever that even means in this case.

5/20/2011 4:08:15 AM

Tempus

Oh, good. More conservative revisionist mathematics for the lose.

5/20/2011 4:10:09 AM

DFS

Makes a lot of sense to me

5/20/2011 4:11:11 AM

C_V


kind of fascinating to watch this guy devolve into utter, drooling, idiocy. fascinating and repulsive.

5/20/2011 4:13:00 AM

towey

good job. he knows 1/4 of the alphabet

5/20/2011 4:15:28 AM

Table Rock

Sets? Sets of what?

And who says that the union of two sets with the greatest number of elements is better? Why not intersection, complement or product? Oh, probably because those don't support your dumb-ass idea.

Anyway, humans don't merge into a a single, all-encompassing entity, especially not because of a marriage.

5/20/2011 4:20:56 AM

Veras_the_Brujah

Finally, Andy is making some sense.

However, he doesn't go far enough. Obviously, since the purpose of marriage is to promote diversity, there should be other restrictions as well. People should not be allowed to marry within their own race, ethnic group, class, language, or any other concieveable category which may restrict diversity in marriage. Because, you know, if we restrict diversity in marriage, the world will blow up... or something.

So do what Jesus wants... marry someone whom you have nothing in common with!

5/20/2011 4:22:48 AM

Alpha_Omega

Is this some bullshit distortion of set theory?

5/20/2011 4:31:02 AM

Lpopman

Andy, show me where you got the data from, and you can have a wowwypop just like the rest of the class.

Fucking dolt.

And this guy teaches classes. What a fucking waste of children's talent. Fucktard.

btw, I hate supposed educators that promote fallacy. Fucking arseholes.

5/20/2011 4:33:02 AM

Raised by Horses

Getting there, Andy. The conclusion you've arrived at is, for once, not complete bullshit.

The premise, however, is another story.

5/20/2011 4:50:57 AM

Gawd


Mental illness?

5/20/2011 4:53:50 AM

dionysus

In that case polygamy must be the greatest thing a person can ever do. Thanks for the inspiration, I'm off to fill up the entire alphabet! Twice!

5/20/2011 4:55:34 AM

Deepfriedice

We said they would not dare meddle with science, but with the Scopes Monkey Trial they showed us wrong.

We said they would not dare revise history, but the Texas board of education did.

We said they would not dare rewrite the bible, but The conservative bible project was started anyway.

We said they would not dare interfere with mathematics...

5/20/2011 4:56:34 AM

Mister Spak

The union of A (Andy Shlafly) and C (computer) produces the set {WHAARRRRGAARRRBBLLLLL}.

5/20/2011 5:02:35 AM

meh

Wow, I never paid any attention in Math class but, did anyone else's brain go wtf?

5/20/2011 5:25:17 AM

Passerby

Asspull algebra does not make your argument any more reasonable, nor does it make you seem any more educated.

If you really want to argue variables Andy, then perhaps we should discuss terms of MW, MM, WW, MH, WH, HH, or the Mormon and Islamic favorite: MWWW

With 6 more named combinations, that's quite a bit more diverse than simply MW. On that note, MW is a much more simplified expression than your Klandaddy might have preferred. My, just the stir MW caused 40 years ago by further specifying variables such as BM and WW (Black Man and White Woman) could only match with their opposing pairs BW and WM. As that formula has become more diverse in recent years without the heat death of the universe setting in I would propose we continue to broaden our variables and simplify our expressions.

We can also discuss advanced equations such as the flexibility of scripture where the expansion of clerical power and financial gains of the Church have been concerned, such as the allowance of any man to take a woman as his lawfully wedded wife when that was at one point a blessing 'God' only bestowed upon the ruling class.

Of course, that changed when the Church was promised a tithe for every ceremony. Then the scriptures suddenly meant that everyone must be joined in holy matromony to live as God intended.

5/20/2011 5:34:43 AM



MATHEMATICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!! GOOD NIGHT!!!

5/20/2011 5:36:46 AM

Mithras

Now he has finally lost his mind. Until this point, I thought he was just stupid, but now it's official: Teh Assfly is either insane or the best fucking Poe in the world.

5/20/2011 5:44:33 AM
1 2 3 4 5 7