Weekend stuff: Notes on women's logic

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Presently precise knowledge conquers all new areas. One such area is women's logic.

The rigorous presentation is still in its infancy. The usual male logic passed this stage more than two thousand years ago, but female logic is still waiting for its Aristotle. The descendants have a great and honorable task to create a systematic course of female logic, to fulfill its axiomatization, to create computers operating according to female logical schemes. For now, we have to limit ourselves to some notes. Their task is, as far as possible, to make up for an oversight of nature that has deprived men of the innate ability to use female logic, which is so necessary in many life situations. It can be foreseen that our presentation itself is based on feminine logic. This statement should be considered completely inappropriate: the requirement to expound Aristotelian logic with the help of a woman would not sound better.

Why is this generally perceived as a reproach? It is based on a mocking and dismissive philistine attitude towards female logic. This attitude is not too surprising: it is, unfortunately, a frequent reaction when meeting something alien and inaccessible. It is also possible that at first the naked islanders laughed, pointing with their fingers at the dressed (and armed) sailors of Cook ...

We will take this subject quite seriously and respectfully, much more seriously than it might seem from a cursory reading of this work.

Based on his own sad experience, the author advises a beginner not to enter into conversations with women without thoroughly studying this guide. It is best to pre-purchase some preparation in special courses in this subject. Students of these courses, in addition to the main activities, are recommended exercises aimed at increasing the volume of the lungs and strengthening the vocal cords. Unrelenting attention should be paid to general physical training and hardening of the body. Constant medical supervision is very important.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

GENERAL REMARKS

Maybe not the main thing, but the first striking difference between female logic and male logic is that it is always applied to disputes. Male logic can be applied to disputes and to abstract discourses. Women's logic is more specialized: being applied in a narrower field of thinking, it gives results that are far superior to anything that Aristotle could have dreamed of. Male logic examines the disputes that arose as a result of the fact that two people, starting from common assumptions, come to different conclusions. Due to the fact that the rules of inference are unambiguous, one of them is right, and the other made a logical mistake, and who is right and who is not, you can find out, regardless of the person.

Women's logic is applied to any dispute, and therefore it may well be that each of the disputes is right. There is even a special expression to denote such a situation: You are right in your own way. Such a situation, of course, cannot take place if the inference rules are unambiguous. The words "you are right in your own way" should be understood as follows: applying the inference rules the way you do it, you will turn out to be right, or from your assumptions you make a conclusion correctly, but they are different for me.

In the current state of science, we cannot answer the question of who will prevail in an argument based on feminine logic. This small research, we hope, will help future researchers find the wording of the answer, if it is possible in principle. Let's start with the following example.

Lisa is six years old, Vanya is four years old. Despite such a tender age, they use feminine logic.

Lisa: I'll go to Uncle Kolya, but I won't take you!
Vanya: I'll go without you myself!
Lisa: And I'll tie you in the room with a rope.
Vanya: And I'' cut a rope and go.
Lisa: And I’ll lock you up!
Vanya: I'll break the door!
Liza: And I will make an iron door!
Vanya: And I'll climb out the window!
Lisa: And I'll close the window with iron !!!
Vanya: I'll break the wall then !!!
Lisa: And I'll lock you in the iron room !!!

Here Vanya, in terms of female logic, could object only by moving to another plane (see the corresponding section), but he does not know how to do this. He can only cry, which is what Lisa wanted. But why did Vanya find himself in such a desperate situation? It can be noted that the course of the conversation was determined not by what the talkers disagreed on, but by what they agreed on. Namely, Lisa admitted that Vanya can break any non-iron objects, and left herself the opportunity to create any iron ones. Although this was not directly stated, Vanya agreed with this and in the conversation proceeded from the same assumptions. This side of feminine logic is discussed in more detail at the end of the notes.

Here are some simple rules of a private nature, with the help of which, in many important cases, you can find out who will be right in a dispute based on female logic. An uncontested statement is proven.

It does not matter, for whatever reasons, there was no objection. For example, if you express 5 - 10 judgments in a row at a high speed, then we can say with confidence that some of them will remain unanswered. If the judgment is followed by an insult, then the answer is mostly to the insult, and not to the judgment, which becomes proven, unless the reciprocal insult is stronger than the original one. It is clear from this that the strength of the arguments used must increase. (Below we will have the opportunity to explore this issue in depth.) You can leave your statement unanswered by running out of the room in time, or, at worst, by covering your ears. The last gesture should be done clearly enough. If you, say, pre-plug your ears with cotton wool, then your interlocutor will consider that her arguments reached you and remained unanswered. And in the dispute, she will be right.

An interesting question is about disputes in which the interlocutors do not listen to one another at all. Probably, each of them is right in its own way.

The above reasoning is enough to form an idea of logical arguments of this type.

Silence can be interpreted as agreement, so a quick response is almost always better than a deliberate response. Moreover, as we will see below, the role of the content of the answer should not be overestimated. The one of the disputants who has the last word wins the whole dispute completely. For this reason, objections are always directed against the last statement of the opponent. Indeed, if it is refuted, then it is enough to end the conversation. However, this can be tricky.

The second reason why you should focus your attention exclusively on the last statement is that it makes no sense to refute the penultimate statement: your opponent can always deny it or distort it beyond recognition. No one can enter the same river twice. In the same way, in a conversation with a lady, one cannot return to what was said earlier.

One interesting consequence arises here, namely: no proof can be longer than one sentence. Longer proofs are not applicable in practice. Reasoning from several phrases is used when the interlocutor is deprived of the opportunity to answer you: he is confused, slow to think or is in a position dependent on you. In the latter case, logic prescribes to insert from time to time the phrase "Be silent when I'm talking to you!" However, in all these cases, your correctness is assured.

However, logic would not be feminine if even the fundamental rule of the last word could not be challenged. One lady at Bernard Shaw says: "I would let him have the last word, dear. The most important thing is not to say the last word, but to put it on your own."

In feminine logic, every statement can not only be refuted, but also rejected. Rejecting the statement, you recognize it as meaningless and ignore it. If you rejected the last statement of the interlocutor, your penultimate statement remains unanswered and, thus, becomes proven. For example, the most basic considerations can be dismissed with the words "So what?" or "Couldn't think of anything else?"

In one of the next paragraphs, we will try to show, by example, how arguments are rejected. Here we will only note that the statements of the interlocutor based on obvious facts must be rejected, since it is difficult to refute them even in female logic. Facts ... Not all of them are to our taste, but to deny them is a sign of low qualifications. It's amazing how little it needs to be tweaked to turn a fact from an enemy into an ally.

Summing up, we note that the content of the interlocutor's answer is not important for the lady, but only the circumstance that she answered is important. And this circumstance is outrageous.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

It is necessary to bear in mind and constantly remember that the statements of the ladies are multifaceted. Analyzing any statement of the lady, you should answer at least three questions:

What the lady said
What the lady wanted to say,
What she actually said.

The following are the second level questions:

What she actually wanted to say
What she actually said,

and so on ... There can be many levels. In view of the rudimentary nature of this guide, we will restrict ourselves to the first level questions. To illustrate, imagine the following scene:

Santuzzi, accompanied by the young Duke, walks through the park and unexpectedly (for him) asks his companion to tie a lace on her boot. The Duke is confused:

But it's tied up! he says.
Moron! replies Santuzzi.
The Duke is dumbfounded and offended:
But what did I deserve, mademoisie ...
Leave me!

The Duke leaves, complaining to himself about the incomprehensible whims of his lady and the complete lack of logic in the behavior of women. (“I knew he was an idiot, but I couldn’t have imagined that he was such an idiot!” Santuzzi would later say to his trusted maid.)

So the first statement is a request. What the lady wanted to say, the Duke did not guess - we leave it to the reader to guess, and therefore, in fact, she said only what she said. With the second statement, Santuzzi did not want to offend the Duke, but only pointed out to him his mistake. If she had not given vent to her (quite understandable) frustration, she would have spoken softer. But the Duke took her literally, and therefore, in fact, she just offended him.

It can be assumed that in the third statement Santuzzi wanted to say: "You did not understand anything! Don't I need to tell you directly ...", whether it was part of her intentions to remain alone, we do not know. But, again, she was taken literally.

To give the reader an idea of the second level questions, let's say that the entire scene was played out. Imagine that before it began, Santuzzi noticed her cousin Francesca standing on the balcony, and wanted to demonstrate to her maybe something that did not happen due to Duke's idiocy, or maybe something that actually happened. Well, and to whom, in fact, did she want to tell in fact when she asked the Duke to tie her lace? In addition, she could not help but take into account that everything Francesca saw would immediately become known to the old Marquis ...

According to the results of surveys, it is known that among the main advantages of a life partner, ladies include understanding on his part. However, nowhere is it specified to what level this understanding should reach.

In this essay, we will not delve into the complex problems of female semantics, but we will understand each statement as it sounds.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

GENERAL JUDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER BY EXAMPLE

In feminine logic, as in Aristotelian logic, there are general and particular judgments. However, the rule that a general judgment cannot be proven by any number of examples, but can be refuted by one contradictory example, does not hold.

If one example does not always completely prove a general proposition, then two examples prove it anyway. Likewise, a contradictory example does not refute anything, since there is only one, and one example does not say anything.

These laws of feminine logic are in contradiction from the point of view of masculine logic, but this does not mean anything; they are both fair.

The denial of a general judgment, naturally, is also a general judgment, and not a particular one. Consider, for example, the following exchange of replicas, which is repeated from generation to generation, but remains fresh for the interlocutors:

Mother: You only think only about yourself all the time!
Daughter: What do you want me to always think only about you!?

Let us illustrate what has been said about refutation with an example using the following dialogue.

Lillian: Since I married you, you have not given me anything! (General judgment.)
John: Sorry honey, but by May 1st I gave you a gallon of perfume. (Contrary example.)
Tyt Lillian can choose among several answer options:
1st option:
Lillian: Raise up, some gallon of bad perfume! I used it once a year and you also put it to yourself! (Example is rejected.)
2nd option:
Lillian: You didn’t give me anything, it’s you probably gave the perfume to some singer. O! You are capable of this! (Example refuted.)
3rd option:
Lillian: I don't remember any perfume! But even if you give me some once a year, how can this be compared with the care that other men show !?
(An example is both rejected and refuted.)

In connection with the question under discussion, it is necessary to mention the well-known law of female logic, according to which the exception confirms the rule. This law makes it possible to reject conflicting examples without brooding for a long time.

The logical figure described below is known as Cleopatra's turn, although it was undoubtedly used in the Stone Age. It consists in asking for confirmation by an example, and then accusing it of pettiness. Let's see how this is applied in practice:

Lidia: All the time you work here you are so mean!
Larisa: And wen I had been mean to you? Don't remember any case.
Lidia Ivanovna: Yesterday, when I sent you to the office, what did you tell me?
Larisa: And what? It is none of my business to run to the office! And you have no right to send me!
Lydia : Or on Friday, when I opened the window ... Well, let’s say, you were little sick. But is that how you should have spoken?
Larisa: Well, Lydia, you always bother with some little things that once were! There is no life with you!

Vitaliy_Kiselev

REPEATING THE ARGUMENT

In male logic, we have become accustomed to the fact that the probative power of an argument does not change when it is repeated. If the theorem is proved, then no matter how many times doubts arise, repeating the proof will eliminate them.

In female logic, the evidentiary power of an argument, when repeated, changes according to a rather complex law. Most often it grows, but sometimes it falls catastrophically.

When repeating an argument, it should be given a new expression every time. It is especially important that insults and abuse are fresh every time. If you do not comply with this rule, then be sure that after the second or third repetition your argument will be rejected: Well, you are are talking same thing! Only green beginners can make this mistake.

We will illustrate this with a scene performed (based on the tragedies of Aeschylus) by two soloists and a chorus.

Citizen: Glasses! Glasses! Stolen! Horrible!
Chorus of passengers: Look for yourself, who need your old glasses?
Citizen: Stolen! Look on this man! Give me back my glasses! And how horrible!
Guy: I was standing there and was not here. I could't stole your glasses.
Citizen: Of course he steal them! Look how he looks!
Chorus: No, he was not, he was standing there!
Citizen: Prison is not enough for him! Chop: Well! Just! Maybe he took it?
Guy: I stood there and was not there at all!
Citizen: Of course a thief!
Chorus: Give her the glasses, and we'll end the conversation!
Guy: I wasn't there, I was standing there ...
Citizen: Here is a thief, a pickpocket! Clearly, he stole!
Chop: What to say! He asserts his own, like an ass!
Citizen: To the police! What are you worth !?
Chorus: To the police! And we will all confirm that he that he stole the citizen's glasses!

Disputes in which each party repeats its arguments are called cyclic. Over time, the dynamic theory of cyclic disputes will turn into an interesting chapter of women's logic, rich in ergodic theories and asymptotic estimates.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES

And in male logic, comparatively few judgments are absolutely true or false, regardless of quantitative estimates. When a man, trained in logic, says that the boot is black, this man, as a rule, does not mean that the boot absorbs all rays falling on him. But, pronouncing such a statement, the man considers it his duty to define what he calls the black color. Such studies, which are not related to the substance of logic, are usually delicate and laborious. They greatly slow down the process of dispersion. Women's logic is more flexible and does not know such embarrassment. Whether or not to recognize a given color as black is entirely determined by the goal. Let's explain this with a small example:

Raisa: Senya, you have such a terrible collar! Take off your shirt, I'll give it to the wash!
Semyon: It's still pretty clean, Raechka. I just put it on yesterday
Raisa: Look at the collar! It is completely black.
...
...
Aunt Sasha: Raisa, if you are going to give me such well-worn shirt, I will take extra for them! It is really long hard to hands wash!
Raisa: Semyon wore it only for one day. Yes, you look at the collar - it is completely white.

As an exercise, I invite the reader to decide what temperature (in degrees C) a perfectly cold tea has: +80, +40, +18, 0, -273?

Please note that Senya's collar is completely black. Women's logic does not know half-tones: any doubt, uncertainty is a weapon in the hands of the opposite side. In a correctly constructed phrase, everything should be convex and contrasting, taken to the extreme. For example, a daughter in a dialogue from the section on general judgments always thinks about herself. Listen to another monologue, interesting not only in this respect.

"I have absolutely nothing to put on! You can't put on this - no one ever go out in things like that. And this !? How can I go in this - everyone is wearing things like it! And this I wore yesterday ... And it is absolutely nothing else. No!"

Vitaliy_Kiselev

TRANSITION TO ANOTHER PLANE

This small part is devoted to one of the most important abilities of female logic - the transition to another plane. This is what they mean when they say that in women's logic, two multiplied by two is equal to a stearin candle. The essence of the transition to another plane is to change the subject matter of the discussion as less explicitly as possible. Of course, you should choose a new plane so that it can be easier to prove your rightness in it. By doing this, you automatically win the entire dispute, including in all the planes you left.

In the most primitive form, the transition to another plane has the form of what the Romans called the quaternio term, and the Russians denote the proverb: In the garden there is a black elderberry, and in Kiev there is an uncle. In a more developed form, instead of some very controversial statement, they will brilliantly prove to you something else - indisputable. Try to oppose such! To do this, it is necessary to return to long forgotten words of the disputer, which, as we have seen, is impossible.

It should be borne in mind that all the variety of the method of transition to another plane cannot in any way be reduced to the types of solutions that are described in Aristotelian logic as erroneous.

We met one example of a transition to another plane already in the dialogue between Lydia and Larisa. Larisa replaced the discussion of the form of her answer on the occasion of the office with the discussion of the content of this answer. Let's consider one more example:

Anna: Lieutenant Pronin is not a womanizer at all!
Lyuba: Right! Yesterday I looked at him, he talked for almost an hour with the barmaid Nyurka!
Anna: What is big problem? He just talked to Nyurka, and not an hour, but five minutes, I also watched this - and he instantly call him womanizer!

Lyuba, feeling the weakness of her arguments, transforms the conversation into another plane, for example, like this:

Lyuba: Just five minutes! Aunt Grusha had time to go to fetch water and give the calf to drink, and they still stood talking there.
Anna: They have a well nearby, and the calf did not manage to finish drinking ...

Anna, as we can see, does not give up, but the transition to another plane was successful. Now Lieutenant Pronin's reputation depends on whether the calf has finished drinking.

The transition was a success, or it might not. The opposite side may not accept the proposed transition to another plane - and try to object to you in the old plane. Now you can choose: go back and argue in the old plane, or continue to develop your thoughts in a new one. So a situation may arise in which each of the disputers, ignoring the statements of the other, speaks about their own. It is important to understand that such disputes are no worse than others and are subject to general laws.

It should be noted that the plane in which the dispute is being conducted sometimes changes at a very significant rate. The speed can be so high that it is generally impossible for a man without special training to understand what is at stake. The author, with the help of long-term observations and reflections, revealed the nature of this phenomenon. The purpose of such a dispute is to find out who is right and who is wrong in general, and not on any private question. Therefore, the subject of the dispute does not represent any interest for the partners and is easily worn out.

So, for example, it may easily turn out that the most logical answer to the statement "... but in Bulgaria, in Golden Sands, the sand is still twice as hot!" there will be a saying "But my husband and I were in Bakyriani in winter, so there are only foreigners there ..."

Essentially, an important method of feminine logic, which we can call parenthesis, is reduced to a transition to another plane. It consists of the following: for example, your disputer has an important and convincing argument that you cannot refute, and it is not easy to reject it. What to do? Agree. Yes, as paradoxical as it sounds, agree briefly and emphatically. Immediately after consent, you need to say "BUT" and, without taking a breath, state your own considerations, transferring to another plane. It is difficult for the interlocutor, and there is nothing to insist on - you agreed. He will have to either move to a new plane or repeat his argument. In the latter case, it will be much easier to reject it. Or you can again agree and continue your own. Correctly bracketed, an argument seems to hang in an airless space and in the end is either rejected or leaves the stage. It is very useful to put in brackets the dignity of the disputer and your shortcomings:

"Yes, I know that I am a useless mother, but you always think only of yourself!"

or

"Of course, you earn a lot, but think of me: I am alone all day, and in the evening you come tired, and you have no time for me. I can hang myself from such a life!"

Here's a more detailed example:

Natalya: Well, what were you doing here while I was away? I suppose you watched TV all the time?
Masha: Mom, I washed the floor.
Natalya: I see that you washed it: all the chairs have been put up at random, again I have to clean up after you!
Hands are buzzing in the morning, and you all only know to watch TV!
Masha: I washed the floor, not watched TV.
Natalya Sergeevna: Why are you again with all this floor stuff! I'm not blind. I am really sick with all this TV! If I still will see you constantly watching it, just know, I will spank you thoroughly!

Natalya Sergeevna will not go silent for a long time - not before she finally convinces herself of her own righteousness - but this will be a monologue: the Masha's argument is firmly bracketed.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

ESCALATION METHOD

A well-formed logical reasoning should not resemble a sluggish altercation. Although, in principle, it is possible (and sometimes necessary) to repeat your arguments, it is better and more effective to find new ones. Your logical reasoning should be dynamic and correctly dramatically constructed, the strength of the arguments used should increase.

Here you need to pay attention to the fact that not every occasion you can use arguments of any strength. Can, for example, an adult girl burst into tears if he bought her the wrong kind of candy? Hardly. It is not nice for an eight-year-old girl even. Well, what if her fan is completely indifferent to what kind of sweets she likes, and he does not pay any attention to her tastes at all? Here it is quite possible to cry. And if he don't love her at all, well, absolutely? Loud tears here become necessity.

We see, therefore, that the strength of the arguments must be increased, moving into a plane where these arguments will not only be logical, but also appropriate. This is what causes a dramatic increase in tension in the conversation: there is, as we say, an escalation.

When using the escalation method, it is important to completely forget the original plane, where it all started. If you do not, then at some point you will look down from a height, the initial subject of the dispute from such a distance will seem small to you, and you will feel dizzy: is this trifle really worth it? Here you are loosing! In the case of escalation, the one who cannot stand it is wrong if he will not accept the transition to a new higher level of tension. As you strive for the shining heights, never look down or stop. Only victory at any cost!

However, the victory, as noted, belongs to the one of the disputers who managed to end the conversation in proper time. A phrase known as Xanthippe's argument can help here (Xanthippe's true glory, however, was brought about by a completely different argument, which purists hardly recognize as logical. According to the author, this once again proves that great discoveries are made at the intersection of sciences.)

"Well, you know, I won't talk to you in that tone!"

It can be helpful to deliberately reduce the discussion to a squabble in order to pronounce this phrase. The disputer will not only admit you are right, but will also feel guilty.

Another tip: go ahead and let the other person climb behind you. It demoralizes him. He barely kept up and constantly need to answer you at a new level. Don't listen to him! And what does this have to do with it? Jump through one level and treat him with an argument that he could not expect from you. The result will not be long in coming.

Let us quote A.A. Akhmatova:

How can I forget? He staggered out
The mouth twisted painfully ...

The poetess does not specify by what methods her lyrical heroine achieved such an effect, but the gaze of an experienced person will unmistakably determine that the main role here was played by escalation.

To some extent, escalation occurs in any conversation, but it takes on a pronounced dramatic character only with the proper energy, perseverance and uncompromising attitude of both disputers. Of course, a victory achieved by an escalation method can be expensive, but defeat cannot be tolerated, much less get used to it. Besides, a word is not a sparrow, and a word that has flown out can often be caught or, in extreme cases, bracketed: "Yes, of course, I said so. So what?" By the way, the word also differs from the boomerang: the boomerang returns only when it misses, the word can return, even hitting the victim. Let's continue the quote:

I ran away without touching the railing
And ran after him to the gate.
Gasping for breath, I shouted: "Joke
All that has been done before! If you leave, I'll die! "

Wow, jokes! But let's move on to an illustrative example.

Regina: Excuse me, will you put away your suitcase?
Margarita: No, I won't. Why should I put it away?
Regina: It's so close to sit! You here with your suitcase have occupied half of the seat!
Margarita: You need to eat less. You will lose weight and you won't need so much space.
Regina: Why you are you so rude? Everyone became so rude, it is simply impossible to get on the train! Margarita: You yourself are rude!

(The classic transition to another plane is to go to the discuss the disputer person.)

Regina: Who is rude to you !? I said in clean English, put your suitcase away!
Margarita: So you are also "poking" at me! Here, in principle, I will not remove anything!

(Moving to principles is a common method of escalation. Persistence in small things is stubbornness, but concessions on matters of principle are unacceptable.)

Regina: Wow, you are so principled! Look at yourself: You are all made up with all this cosmetics, and look at your hair, I suppose you haven't combed them for a week!

(Now all gets to personal level.)

Margarita: You ... Boor, boor, that's all! I won't even talk to such a boor. You are all dirty, you stink, and even use expensive French perfume to cover it up, so that others won't know!

It is unlikely that the disputers, with all their desire to win, will go to checkmate, and without it their opportunities for mutual insults are limited: they do not know each other at all. It's a different matter when close people are talking, each of whom knows the scale of the other's values to the depths ... In the dialogue cited, the pace of escalation slows down, and the audience, who have been following the conversation tensely until now, feel the need to intervene in order to maintain the intensity of the performance. We'll leave them here.

Vitaliy_Kiselev

SYLLOGISMS

One of the features of feminine logic is the absence of syllogisms. It testifies not at all to the weakness of the thinking abilities of the beautiful sex, but to the strength of these abilities. Indeed, the point is not at all that a woman cannot draw a conclusion from two premises, but that she knows that the disputer will make this conclusion no worse than her. And do not doubt that if the conclusion does not satisfy the disputer, then she will be able to renounce both the big and the small premise in time, and generally renounce everything what is required. If the conclusion will satisfy your disputer, then it is necessary, without wasting time, to deny all premises yourself. Since all this is known in advance, syllogisms are not used. If the man tries to use them, then the lady should only pay attention to the fact that one should not agree with the premises without a word, but only conditionally, by saying say, for example, "let's allow such premise, or let's say it is so" or something else like that.

This is how it looks in practice:

Ivan: If I drank a little, then these are good people, friends - you know - friends, they welcomed me!
Tatiana: You are lying, damned!
Ivan: Did I bring you all my salary?
Tatiana: Well, let's say, you indeed bring the whole ...
Ivan: So I have nothing to buy a drink even?
Tatiana: So I wonder why you are drinking?
Ivan: And as I have nothing to buy any drink, it means that friends invited me!

Here Tatiana with a purely feminine discernment proceeds to reject the premises:

Tatiana: Your salary is really tiny $2000, and your friends are all alcoholics, my eyes wouldn’t look at you, you drunken face!

It should be strongly emphasized that if it is necessary to draw a conclusion from two premises, it must be done according to the rules of female logic. Indeed, consider, for example, the following phrase: "My friend's Alex friends are only scoundrels and villains."

From the two statements contained in it, it would follow that the speaker himself is a scoundrel or a crook. In women's logic, such a conclusion is incorrect, and any lady will utter a similar phrase with a light heart, and some even, perhaps, even a pearl of the collection assembled by the author:

"Oh, you son of a bitch! I'm good for you as a mother..."

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters