[In a mathematical article about sets]
Application
106 comments
And yet more kids put up for adoption will never have a permanent home. Tell me, which is sadder? A fetus that's terminated before it has a chance to see the world or a child who's abandoned/orphaned and ends up seeing the world as a cold, unloving place with no room for them?
At the same time it is as well possible that a lot of worlds worst dicators (like Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot) or criminals (like scarface or charles manson) could have been outdone by members of this set, or that one or multiple members of this set would have become cult leaders like L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh or Jim Jones, thereby making lots of other people poor or leading them to death
;)
You call that an application of set theory?!!!
That's just dressing up a stupid argument in mathematical terms, to make it sound more sophisticated. Doesn't make it any less stupid, though.
There is the set of unborn children whose parents were murdered in religious conflicts throughout history, about which striking conclusions can be drawn. Given the large and diverse number of elements of this set, it would likely include many who could surpass existing athletic and intellectual achievements. Indeed, many of the world records and Nobel Prize achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set.
As a math major in college, I would like to present the "Schlafly" set. It is completely inconsequential, and even less important than the empty set. Incidentally, Schlafly's brain is an element of the empty set.
We misrepresented this quote.
It's actually more batshit insane than that!
Aside from the short description of "sets," which has nothing on the "liberal" Wikipedia's huge-ass articles on mathmatical subjects, Application is the only sub-heading & this is all that's in it!
In other words, this article exists for the sole reason of providing a (weak) argument against abortion, wherever it can be shoehorned in.
Your propaganda is showing. Painfully.
And illogically. The set of foetuses who were born is much larger than the set of foetuses who were aborted. Statistically, isn't it more likely that there would be far more high achievers in the set of people who were born?
Also, statistically, those foetuses who are aborted are usually aborted for a reason, such as lack of money, lack of a suitable environment, or the potential parents not being ready for a child. Thus, those foetii, were they not aborted, would have been more likely to grow up in poverty, living with parents that didn't want them, didn't care or weren't good parents, brought up in foster homes or state-run orphanages, or other situations that aren't ideal. Statistically speaking, these kinds of situations make it harder for children living under them to grow up to be high achievers - statistically, a higher proportion of criminals come from those living in these poor conditions who don't have other options. So this argument really, really doesn't work.
citation
serial killers?
and so what?
Also an argument for banning contracption, masturbation and celibate priests.
In fact any second not used for sex is potentially killing Einstein. I can only conclude that Assfly supports 24/7 continuous orgies.
Okay, I can see some merit in this "intellectual achievements" thing, but what the hell it is with athletics? Do you seriously give a flying fuck?
Oh, and don't forget serial rapists and child molesters, who have a great chance of emerging after having a great chance of being raised in an abusive household. Something to think about, too.
"Indeed, many of the world records and Nobel Prize achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set."
Andy can see the future! Andy knows all!
Here's the thing, Andy. It's, in part, because of people like you - small-minded, intolerant, black-and-white thinkers - that abortion is necessary. Why? Because you refuse to help. Poor people are poor because they deserve to be and you squeal like a li'l piggy when the idea of actually forking over some hard-earned to help the less fortunate is mooted. How many orphans have you adopted, Andy? Do you know what a needle exchange is? A soup kitchen? Christ on a basturt bike, have you ever given a helping hand to anyone, anywhere in your entire miserable life who didn't think like you do? Give it a fucking rest and grow a conscience.
Indeed, many of the world records and Nobel Prize achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set.
And then the ultimate irony: one of these Nobel prize winners gets a Nobel prize for disproving god.
What a stupid argument.
So instead of masturbating every time you get that urge, you should have unprotected sex with a woman.
Because statistically, some of those sperms that get thrown out in a tissue may have grown up to be world class athletes and intellectuals.
Actually, most of the unborn "children" who have been aborted would've grown up to lead miserable lives, since their parents (for the most part) didn't want them in the first place.
I just thought of something that would be hilarious: Andy gets mugged by someone who exists only because his/her mother wasn't allowed to abort him/her. That would be hilarious to see Assfly try to ignore that.
Here's an application of sets for you, bitch:
A = { intelligent people }
A n C = Ø, B n C = Ø, A u B = C', A n B = B
B is a proper subset of A.
C is not a subset or otherwise a member of either A or B. In fact, the mere entertainment of that possibility by any member of A (or, by extension, B) would result in the universe suffering a massive Blue Screen of Death that rips apart the fabric of reality.
Translation: You are an anvilicious imbecile who fails mathematics forever.
(Also, my own set-theory knowledge is a bit rusty, so feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes.)
By the same argument, it would also have contained evil motherfuckers that would have made Hitler look like Ghandi.
Of course, the argument is stupid either way.
shykid,"A n C = { Ø }
{Ø} = the set that contains the empty set. If you're trying to say that there are no people are in both A/B and in C then you would write:
AnC= Ø
"A u B = { C' }"
What is C'?
Nice to see someone is trying to actually understand set theory though. Needless to say it's a MUCH better effort than Schlafly.
@Night Jaguar: Thanks for the corrections. The apostrophe in C' is relative compliment, i.e. everything but (or U \ C).
Or I think, IIRC, anyway. Wikipedia seems to agree, but it's been over three years since I learned this stuff or actually used it.
Either way, I can't believe I just got so distracted by this quote that I spent 30 minutes reviewing sets and editing that comment.
Andy, you're not qualified to write a math segment for Sesame Street let alone attempt to write about set theory.
Also, not every fucking thing is about abortion. Or liberalism. Or homosexuals. Or whatever else is itching your fevered little brain at the moment.
It also follows that a percentage of said set would also wind up becoming ignorant, unthinking, dimwitted, christofascist sheeple like Andy Schlafly. Now there's a true human tragedy...
Of course there are just as many drug dealers, mass murderers and rapists as well...
And considering how Abortion is usually done because the parents are in a crappy situation, the law of averages says I'm more right than you.
And how many potential athletes and intellectuals did we lose because their potential mothers were not allowed to choose when to have children, and were instead forced to give birth to their first when they were not ready?
"The apostrophe in C' is relative compliment, i.e. everything but (or U \ C). "
Ah, I see.
"Either way, I can't believe I just got so distracted by this quote that I spent 30 minutes reviewing sets and editing that comment."
That's one of the (unintentional) positive side effects of the Conservapedia's campaign against knowledge. Often times it inspires people to learn.
RationalWiki has MANY articles refutting Conservapedia's bullshit claims from many fields (e.g, math, linguistics, physics, biology, medicine, history, Biblical scholarship, economics, etc. and that's just coming from Andy). They're humourous and you're bound to learn something. See http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Category:Conservapedia_essays for instance.
As Dawkins likes to say, The number of people who could be in my, or your, or anyone's place, outnumber the sands of the Sahara. Mathmatics does not deal in ideal possiblities which cannot be quantified by your faulty logic. Please don't smeare the good name of Math with your idiotic brainless bigotry.
Yes indeed. This ties in perfectly with the idea of an imaginary sky fairy who controls the world. It also ties in with the idea that the religious right are deranged imbeciles, at least, they don't seem to care too much that they give that impression.
Hardly a valid argument. The incidence of naturally occurring, spontaneous terminations of pregnancies, with no other intervention that that of Mother Nature herself, is far higher. Who can tell what Einstein, Darwin or Hitler may have been lost to humanity through the action of nature itself.
Also calculate the number of serial killers, wife beaters, dictators and general assholes aborted...
Ah yes Andy Sclafly. A man who says that we need larger classrooms because its boring to listen to the same people over and over again.
The man can't even give a basic math lesson without using it for political indoctrination!
As a math teacher (and a human being), I am ashamed.
How about all the people engaged in scientific endevour and education killed by the Christians in the dark ages? What Shalafly suggest is unborn who may have had potential vs. religious interference with those that did have great potential.
And before anyone pulls out "them were Catholics" I put forward the fact that Dark Ages Catholics were much like todays Fundies in attitude towards science and race
We may have aborted the next Einstein, we may have aborted the next Hitler. Who cares? Those people were never going to exist in the first place. You should be more concerned about the people who are alive. You should be more concerned about improving education and nurturing young minds instead of worrying about that which will never be and was never going to be anyway.
There is the set of those who were became fundamentalists, about which striking conclusions can be drawn. Given the large and diverse number of elements of this set, it would likely include many who could surpass existing intellectual achievements. Indeed, many of the discoveries and Nobel Prize achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set, had their minds not been dulled by fundamentalism.
Children die for multiple causes, from miscarriages to death plagues, and yes, they could be multiple things. Try to use maths in a more comprenhensive way.
you need to go look up Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY on pravda english for some mind bending logic.
another nutcase of the other end of the specturm. But they sound alike quite often.
This particular nutjob came to my attention during the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.
Levitt and Dubner, the authors of "Freakonomics", claim there's a correlation between Roe v. Wade and a sharp drop in the crime rate beginning just about when all those unwanted babies who were aborted would have been reaching criminal age. Not many Nobel laureates grew up in poverty with a teenage mother who didn't want them.
Look, I already hate maths, and now you've gone and made it even more loathsome by injecting politics into maths learning. Eat a flaming bag of dicks, Assfly!
Pretending for a moment that this is at all how set theory works, the argument still doesn't inspire me to ban abortion. Those aborted fetuses who could potentially have made major intellectual, athletic, and/or cultural contributions would still be outweighed by those who would on to be criminals and/or murderers. And of those who had the potential to make any major contribution to society, only a very small few would have had the opportunities that would allow them to do so. Whereas any with the potential inclination could become criminals. It's a lot easier to start dealing crack on the very likely poverty-level budget afforded to the child than it would be to get through grad school.
Of course, Mr. Schlafly isn't really interested in internal logical consistancy. Also, he probably wouldn't like it to be pointed out that any child adopted or otherwise spared abortion who went on to win a Nobel prize would have a disproportionately high chance of being Jewish and still rejecting his religion.
Politicization of math ?
Where have I seen this before?
Mathematics Lesson from a Nazi School Book:
In addition to the Skull Index and the Face Index, the Profile Angle is also important in http://www.ethicsineducation.com/Nazi%20math2.pdf
And, by that same logic, atrocities that far outstrip the worst of the dictators we've ever seen, too, non, mon ami?
I love how Christians always claim that some of the world's greatest leaders, artists, and scientists will never be because they were aborted. But what kind of chance are these kids going to have if they grow up unwanted & unloved and destitute? You'd think the conservatives would love abortion since the vast majority of women having them are lower income or no income earners. And don't forget all the fetuses which are aborted due to health reasons. They'd either die at or just after birth, or have go grow up without a mother. Not a way to get a great start in life to become the world's best leader.
And if Andy's afraid we're aborting great leaders which in his mind meaning right-wing conservative Christian Republicans, then I'm all for it.
Maybe, but with our education and health care system they'd never make it that far. You fucker just don't really care about people once they're here. Once they've been born, they're just extra ammunition for you. Just more cannon fodder.
Indeed, the same could be said for the vast and diverse set of women who could have been world record achievers or Nobel Prize winners if they had not been made to have that baby at fifteen and couldn't afford college.
I did the math one day. Sat and worked it all out. I wanted to know how many children would be left to languish in the foster care system if abortion were made illegal. I calculated how many illegal abortions were likely to happen (based on estimates of the numbers before abortion was legal), calculated how many adoptions could happen (based on surveys of how many people had taken the first step towards adopting). I spent an entire day researching numbers to use.
Within 18 years, 9.5 MILLION additional children would be in the foster care system in the US alone. How the hell would the foster care system support them? If you want to apply mathematical theory to aborted foetuses, calculate the amount of money those extra children would cost the US.
(answer: at 40 000 dollars per child per year in legal fees and housing costs, 380 billion per year after 18 years post-abortion)
Sets DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Individual achievement DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
The Nobel Prize DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Abortion DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
GOODNIGHT!
Once again, Andy the Asshole & Conservapedia the Crap-pile prove how dumb they are. Andy the Asshole (and anyone else who reads/contributes to Conservapedia) don't give a SHIT about babies once they're born. All they care about is their 'right' to CONTROL women. Once the baby is born, fundies like Andy the Asshole don't care what happens to it; if it's born addicted to drugs/alcohol or with horrible birth defects, or born into an abusive household (now there's one Andy would approve of, considering how many fundies believe regualr beatings = 'discipline'), or neglected. Do Andy the Asshole & Conservapedia give a shit about THOSE babies? NO, FUCK YOU, they say.
Andy proves again that he's a single-celled organism just like Mommy. The ignorant, brainless apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
@shykid
I know that by this time it probably doesn't matter, but there is one more little thing I'll point out anyway.
I think you want your universal set to be the set containing all the elements of A, B and C. This would be the union of A, B, and C which is not the same thing as the set {A, B, C}.
Or they would be average joes. Besides, if they don't meet certain requirements later un life, their talents will never develop. If you're going to defend life, don't make it in such a simplistic way
There is also the set of my miscarried embryo and one of my Internet friends' twins who died at age 3 months. Why did God kill that set?
(The other twin survived, and every time her parents look at her, they also see her absent sister.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
