1 is not like 1

1 does not equal 1
2 apples; 1 weighing .3 lbs, 1 weighing .5 lbs. Because weight is different, 2 apples is an invalid assertion. Comparing an apple with other apples is an illogical practice.
The process of doing the same with people is therefore illogical.

What does /sci/ have to say about this logical statement?

First off, you mean mass unless youre trying to compare apples from different planets. Second, you can't multiply a centimeter by a month, just like how you can't compare an object type with newtons. Ergo, get the fuck out.

>>2
Okay, let's work through this, shall we?

If the weight of an object is different because of gravitational differences between other bodies of mass, than mass is what I intended to mean.
The mass of one apple is not the same mass as another apple regardless of which planet you are on or which planet the apples are from.
Therefore, to say there are 2 apples is illogical, perhaps to call both apples "apples" is also a like illogical standard as one is not the other and to GROUP them under one label is illogically synonymous. Ergo, the same process could be said of anything; therefore the process is valid.

What do you say, >>2?

The argument I am posing is this;
if one apple is different from another in any way, shape, or form than to group both or many under one label is therefore illogical.
If said logical process stands, the same also holds true with mathematics as when identifying more than one of anything is an illogical association.
If apple a is different from apple b, than a does not equal b. therefore, one may be called an apple, the other may not.
Likewise, we may say many people are grouped together under the label "humans," but if one is different from another than only one may be called "human" the rest may not.

The issue at hand is generalized association in concord with objects present and/or not present.

What do you say, >>2?

Generalized association has been around for quite some time, providing us with labels, ambiguity, anonymity, and from such a general sense of disconnect is then inferred by any observer. This disconnect happens as the result of what is said, though, the truth of what IS said is that it WAS said. The proof of said speech may or may not be true, but at present the truth that both possibilities exist is true. The awareness of this expression is evidenced by the awareness of uncertainty of an unknown variable. (schrodinger's cat).
:3
What will it take to make one possibility true over another is to look inside the box.

One might say that God is this uncertain unknown that is ever-present from the disconnect between perception and knowledge; just as integrity is the connection between spoken words and endeavored actions. So, one might say that God is integrity. But if this process holds true between one thing, it may be true in another. Generally speaking, God may be seen as something much simpler; God is connection. If God being real is connection, than the Devil being illusion is disconnection.
The ultimate solution of all of these arguments is a binary.
1 and 0. 1 = God; 0 = Devil
God exists in perceived reality, Devil does not exist in perceived reality.
If this holds true, than God does not exist within a conscious mind, the devil does exist within a conscious mind.
The two working in conjunction is an open circuit (the devil) and a closed one (God). This is true for reality.
In the human mind, open circuit (god); closed circuit (devil). The conclusion is that at least one person is closed-minded to God, and open-minded to the devil.
The ideal conclusive solution to this is to become open-minded to God and become closed-minded to the devil.
The only way this may be true is that whatever exists within the mind may than be extolled into perceivable reality. If this is true than one may conclude that perceivable reality may extol into the mind as well.

The imperative of these statements is that one must seek to find one's own Truth and Fallacy and must investigate all conflict and discover an inclusive, adaptable meaning or process. The inability to do this or to decide to NOT do this will result in a person acting foolishly to self-deceive, and through this become self-loathing and project the same onto others because IT is what they wish to indulge. It is to feign ignorance and make illusion a reality and think reality an illusion. If reality were an illusion, then the same would hold true that the only way something may construct or destruct is if it is real. Our thoughts, voice and choice are what make all illusions real, because we are real.

If you can understand the logic in this, than you will begin to discover that any person may abuse language profoundly, but as a logician, they can be SEEN and made AWARE for what they truly are as opposed to what THEY would have us believe they are NOT.

Applesauce, bitch. :3

>>6
>>Applesauce, bitch. :3

exactly.

/sci/ has the worst trolls

>>8
Ah, c'mon, you're not THAT bad. :3