A comment on a secondary reason of a certain situation or predicament will enforce the primary reason for said situation or predicament.

Example:

Predicament: I can never have kids

Primary reason: I can't get a girlfriend.
Secondary reason: I have no testicles
Comment on Secondary reason: "You know, I don't have any testicles."

It is called The Lucas's Law, or more spacifically "The First Law of Primary and Secondary Reasoning"

Don't bother trying to steal this; it is already copyrighted.

Does having no testicles turn girls off? Having no nuts wouldn't automatically negate the lack of a girlfriend henceforth doesn't quite enforce the primary reason of never having kids. Both are 2 very different reasons for the same predicament that there are ways around. And if worse came to worse, you could always adopt.

No, you misread it. The Predicament is the bit about having no kids. The Primary reason is the bit about the girlfriend. See?

but your whole point was how reason 2 enforces reason 1 when in fact both reasons are completely unrelated and can both stand on their own feet as a legit reason for the predicament. It's a logically and thought provoking philosophy but a bad example. here's my example . . .

predicament: I can't get laid.

primary: no woman
secondary: I'm a poor ugly bastard that lives in his mom's basement.

Here being poor and ugly and living at home enforces the fact that no worthwhile woman will ever touch him thus creating the predicament.

Well, that is a great example, but i was saying that the comment on the Secondary reason enforces the Primary reason. Suppose no one knows I have no testicles. If I say in public "You know, I don't have any testicles," any girl around will most definitely be even less likely to fuck me (I mean, if you were a girl would you be into a guy with no balls?). Therefore, it is the comment on the Secondary reason, not the Secondary reason itself, which enforces the Primary reason.

I smell ya. But I am sure there are ladies out there looking for love that would settle for a nutless fella. Like I said adoption and blind love (maybe even some kinky weirdness) are 2 counters to the predicament. Being "less likely" to fuck you to me isn't a strong enough argument to support the comment which enforces the predicament. Whereas my comment on the 2nd reason would be, "Hot damn, there ain't nothing better than my pimply ass doing nothing but playing Xbox all day in my mom's basement, looking at internet porn and living rent free!" Though it's usually guys like that who are in such a predicament that can't see over their uselessness to realize that the 2nd reason directly creates the primary.

Oh yeah, if you are going to copyright or publish or whatever this change it to Lucas' Law. No apostrophe "s" after a word ending in "s."

This is fun. Everyone should join in.

we all need lives.

hahahahahaha thanks for the advice doug. You indeed are correct, I completely understand where you're coming from.

I don't intend to publish/copyright this (just in case you weren't joking). But I do debate that last statement. I forget what the specific rule is, but there are cases where "s's" does apply. It has to do with syllables I believe.

Thanks for the input to the conversation Jelly. Duly noted. Since when does having a semi-intelligent debate constitute needing a life?

girls will have sex with you more if you have no testicles because you cant get them preggo...

I vote everyone posting in this thread should say "logic" from now on.
and if you are at a show and you talk about this thread, you a physically forced to make quotes in the air.

hahahahahaha good idea!

hahahahaha, I thought this was going to be another one of those threads that gets possibly one response. hahaahaha