|
mathematic proof that Women are Evil
|
Posted By:
LaMa
in Europe
Jun 14, 2005
|
Mathematic proof that Women are evil
first, we state that women require time and money:
Women = time * money
...and as we all know, "time is money":
Time = Money
...and therefore:
Women = Money * Money = (Money)^2
...and because "Money is the root of all evil":
Money = sqrt(evil)
...therefore:
Women = (sqrt[evil])^2
...and we are forced to conclude that:
Women = Evil
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2 |
d
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 | 03:00 PM
medskool is thinking about women with a woman's mind. how can you bar someone from thinking? there may have been corrupt and backward people who thought women were not as smart or should be in power but you can never stop someone from having thought without killing them. Not every man thought women should be chained to an oven popping out children, not every one by a long shot. if women were that incapable why would there have ever been queens written into "male-centric" government?
Also, there have been matriarchal societies that do just as badly as a patriarchal ones.
also, just because the people who wrote the history source you use think women were oppressed or not, doesn't mean that was what real day to day life was like. For regular poor people, love means more than money so what would be the advantage to selling the "use of your daughter" when as a poor person they are worthless?
get your head out of your ass, those things are in the ancient past where info is unreliable and complaining about them now does nothing, dwelling on it makes you worse than the creator of the offense. Because if our children grow up thinking men are oppressors what will women be inclined to do? get revenge? never love a man? what if men are taught that women are oppressing them? will they be abusive? or live in fear of what they think a woman can do to them? it was a joke to begin with. |
Oliver
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 | 01:40 PM
Joke or no joke, maths or none, there is something more underlying this whole issue. Search most of the world's greatest philosophers in history, they have quotes either implying or calling Women Evil. In history, there is much also about the torture of Women for suspicion of collusion with the Devil/witchcraft. There is something within Men on a deep level they haven't learned, they have an unconscious perception about a darkness in Women. We have to wonder where this came from, was it Genesis or elsewhere? And, why is it that Women are such a problem for Men when they were created for our benefit? It sounds like chauvinism, but perhaps it takes a partly misguided feminist approach to invent the term in the first place- perhaps these problems with Women only arise when women change roles from home-maker to provider? Something which is unnatural is refered to as an abherration, like to male dogs trying to mate with each other. It happens, by mistake, but clearly is not the natural intended order of Life. Would God call the working Woman looking for IVF because she put off chidren till she was either side of 40 an abherration of modern day society? Certainly, women are most fertile around their early 20's. Men also have a decline, but it is not as severe, and offspring do not have such serious genetic disorders and complications. Can a woman profess to be Mother Earth, to be at one with Nature, to love Nature if she lives at odds with what Nature intends? |
MM
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 | 03:37 PM
I understand how men can hate women and how they can feel women are evil. But, being a woman I understand that women are insane, not evil, just totally nuts.
Morally speaking, both sexes have the capacity for good and evil. The argument is ridiculous in that it assumes if men are not women than men are not evil. Traditional logic fails here.
Realistically speaking, I see how men and women function differently, think differently and feel differently than each other. Their orgasms arise differently, their emotions are developed differently. The fact is that men do not understand women because women are complex creatures. They are naturally high maintenance (hormonal shifts throughout the month, pregnancy, etc...). Their bodies are in a constant state of flux. Women also are severely flawed in that they often fail to recognize their role in relationships, and can easily become geocentric with their heads as the center of the universe. Men have very fragile egos. I see emotional abuse of men likely as prevalent as physical abuse is of women. Women forget that men love a chase, but once they want you, you cannot cling all over them. And, once a woman has a man, she cannot threaten that said man with other male relationships. Cheating is equally stupid both ways. Women forget that men need space to think and feel alone. Too many women are too needy. I also think women fall into the trap of seducing men with their bodies, and forgetting to seduce with their minds... in the end they wonder why they cannot keep someone? They are boring... In short, I defend women, as they HAVE been subjected to patriarchy for thousands of years, but I understand a male's perspective. In the end, we must love each other. That is all. |
MM
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 | 03:45 PM
FYI-- IVF with a donor egg is no different than artificial insemination with donor sperm... biggest difference is there is a little more technology involved with harvesting eggs than sperm. Women's egg's age, but their wombs are fully capable of having children into 40's... surprising things one learns in medical school.
Just saying 😉 |
Oliver
|
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 | 05:51 PM
Haha.😊
The point I was making about a woman's fertility, is she's naturally supposed to have kids before her mid 20's. Her fertility is predominantly about egg quality and the lack of genetic mistakes in the DNA, not her uterus. Her eggs dictate what her menstrual cycle does hormonally. IVF is an unnatural, but just about the only option available to women who want to bear children but prioritise careers over their biology.
It's a contraversial thing to say, but if women prioritising breadwinning makes natural childbirth problematic, you could perhaps say that women are not naturally supposed to work, they're supposed to be home makers. You could even say that Feminism is at odds with Nature, and is as de-feminising to Women as it is de-masculating to Men, if not more so.
We weren't made equal, we're not equal, so why pretend we should have equal roles in society? I use "equal" meaning the same, not in terms of being better or lesser than.
I'm not saying women shouldn't work, I suppose this is about prioritising. I think it's ridiculous a Man can be labelled Sexist when he says a Woman's role is in the home. It doesn't mean she shouldn't work, it's simply a statement of her natural biology. It's a fact not an opinion or a prejudice. Who can deny most women love and are proud of and take great care off their homes, and their children? How many men are talented at homemaking? Hell, the word Sexist itself is ridiculous. Treating humans differently according to their biological gender? That makes perfect sense. Is a Man going to talk to Women the same way and about the same things compared to other Men? A Man knows he shouldn't hit a Woman given the same disagreement with a Man. Men don't open doors for each other, pull out chairs or offer their coats in comparison to when with a Woman. Children know boys and girls are different, it's just stupid Adults are supposed to unlearn this and think Men and Women are the same.
Whoever burned the first bra should probably have had a hysterectomy too. 😊 |
MM
|
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 | 08:24 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html
OPEN YOUR MIND AND LET SOME TRUTH IN. |
Oliver
|
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 | 12:04 PM
I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I don't think women should stay out the workplace, I simply said it's foolish to call someone sexist for suggesting a woman has a fundamental role in homemaking. That's like saying it's sexist to suggest women have a biological role in giving birth. No man would think it sexist to say a man's place is in an office. It's not telling any gender to stay out of one area, it's simply stating a biological point about our natures.
Exceptions exist everywhere, that doesn't disprove a Man's biological role is different to a Woman's biological role. If I show you a picture of a male dog trying to hump another male dog does that prove it's as nature intended?
See, the problem here is not that my eyes are shut, it's that too many people are blinded by a whitewash of PC-ism. Yes men and women can do whatever they want, but don't deny biology in the process. That's what I was pointing out earlier. Working and independence are all well and good, but when you have women that take it to extremes and have to spend upwards of |
Jeb Bushy
|
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 | 12:32 AM
Led Zeppelin... 'Soul of a woman was created below'! ... 'nuff said! |
Quintapus
|
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 | 11:47 AM
Non sequitur! Who said that money is the root of ALL evil? Until you prove this, your entire argument collapses. If a pedophile rapes a child, and that is evil, where does money enter the equation? Money is not evil. I did read in the Bible once where it says that the root cause of all kinds, meaning many varieties, of evil is Avarice, or the "love" of money if you prefer, but it never says that money itself is the root of ALL evil. So where do you get this Money=Evil from? Women are evil with or without money. Try again. |
babal
|
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 | 09:41 AM
Five years on and this thread is still alive. I must admit I stumbled on this page by typing "women are evil" on google. This is a thing I'm thinking about when I see female celebrities. |
|
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2 |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
