Blackpill The Mathematical Proof Framework of Consent

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

Niggah nah. All that math for consent when being Chad is as easy as 1+1=2. Absolutely not. Nope. I want it that simple aswell or they can eat my shit, consent or no consent. Plus I suck at math anyway.

 

[Verxis]

You're missing the point of the thread, brocel. It doesn't matter what's true and what's false. It doesn't matter what makes sense and what doesn't. It doesn't even matter if it's consistent and logical.

What matters is how she feels about it any given moment. That's what's true and that's what's reality for any woman. And that is why the entire concept becomes patently absurd and why the whole thing is a joke. The simple fact that a woman can retroactively withdraw consent at any point in time is a thing that some of these holes legitimately believe can happen and should hold.

This thread does what James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian did with their grievance studies papers, albeit on a comparably much smaller scale. They expertly trolled all of these feminist and gender studies people to illustrate how ridiculous it all is.

Well OP decieved me.

 

[based_meme]

Well OP decieved me.

Not intentionally.

 

[autistspy1]

Consent has mathematical depth

it's not enough that people have a basic addition and subtraction understanding of consent, it's not as binary as "yes" means "yes" and "no" means "no." We need to go further as autists and understand consent as a mathematical proof:

For an interaction I between two individuals A and B, true consent C exists if and only if it satisfies the conditions of safety, autonomy, and mutual affirmation.

Definitions:​

1. Consent (C): A state where an individual willingly agrees to an interaction without coercion, pressure, or impairment.
2. Safety (S): A condition where the individual feels physically, emotionally, socially, and legally secure.
3. Autonomy (A): The ability to make decisions free from manipulation, obligation, or external control.
4. Mutual Affirmation (M): A reciprocal, enthusiastic, and clearly communicated agreement.

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

Proof:​

To establish that true consent C exists, we must prove that the necessary conditions S, A, and M are all satisfied.

1. Assume that consent C is valid.
2. By the axioms, consent implies the presence of S, A, and M.C⇒(S∧A∧M)
3. Conversely, if S, A, and M hold, then consent is present.(S∧A∧M)⇒C
4. Therefore, consent exists if and only if all three conditions are satisfied:C  ⟺  (S∧A∧M)

Since consent is an ongoing function of time, it must be continuously evaluated. If at any point, one of the conditions S, A, or M ceases to hold, then consent is revoked:

¬S∨¬A∨¬M⇒¬C
Thus, any violation of safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation invalidates consent.

Conclusion:​

Consent is a logical construct that relies on multiple interdependent conditions. It is not a singular event but an ongoing state requiring continuous affirmation. The failure of any one component—safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation—renders consent null.

Just as a mathematical proof must be both necessary and sufficient, so too must consent meet all its conditions without compromise. Use the four axioms to your hearts content. for I have mathematically proven it's over.

consent is gay