Thread By the by, I only seem to be eating gentleman sausage today
- Thread starter Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski
- Start date
That's very female of you. To arbitrarily decide questions of fact based on intuition, I mean.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
Triangle man, Triangle man
Triangle man hates circle man
They have a fight, Triangle wins
Triangle man
Didn't you just do that yourself?
And a triangle would be considered more opposite anyways when you look at angles.
In order to form the appearance of a circle with using angles, you need numerous lines as close to 180 degrees as possible. Thus the opposite of that would be as far away from 180 degrees as possible. A square is 90 degrees. An equilateral triangle would be 60. Thus a triangle would be more opposite than a square in terms of angles.
Another way would be to look at the amount of lines needed to draw it. A circle would be an infitesmial number of straight lines needed to form the shape of a circle. Thus the fewer amount of straight lines drawn, the more opposite the shape would be to a circle. A triangle has fewer lines needed than a square. Now if you're going to argue that a circle is one sinous line even though I mentioned straight, how could a dodecagon be more similiar when it has more lines than a square?
Last edited:
