FEED ME MOAR PARADOX! *NOM NOM*

People way over complicate this "unstoppable force immovable object" paradox enigma thing. Just because they meet doesn't mean one has to stop movement or begin movement. Theoretically, all that would happen is the unstoppable force would be deflected in a new direction, leaving the object unmoved and the force still unstoppable. For all I care, the unstoppable force shatters into a million pieces and all those millions of pieces scatter off unstoppably. But one must also define an unstoppable object. Having an object that moves at such speed that it is virtually impossible to impede counters the laws of physics (some random scientific crap/jargon about force and resistance and stuff). Since we're operating outside the laws of physics, you can pretty much create any scenario you desire about them. There are two types of energy in the scientific (and I assume the regular) world; kinetic and potential energy. For instance, Kvetchey Karen has a great deal of potential (energy that could be used for moving) energy when she stands at the top of a flight of stairs. While falling down the stairs, pushed by Dastardly Dane (because KAREN IS SUCH A DOUCHE!), she has high amounts of kinetic (energy that is moving) energy. So a force could be unstoppable in our metaphysical realm based off of either one of these two types of energy. And while we're messing with physics, I'm gonna go deal with some Escher stuff... I'm thinking new troll workout; the Stair Master 4000. It's not actually a machine. It's just perpetual stairs.


Here's a classic:

The following sentence is true.

The previous sentence is false.

They're both right and wrong. It's a perpetual circle of varying validity. The second sentence has a loophole, though. Sometimes there's more than two sides to a story. It says that the first sentence is false; just because something is not true at the present time doesn't mean that it will be forever untrue. If I were to say That Obama is the President of the United States, it would be a true statement. In ten years it will definitely not be true. In two years, it could be true. That last statement I made is conjecture, based off an unstable fact. When we say that the last sentence is false, what we're really saying is that it's false for now. It'll be true later, so why worry about it? And since there are always three parts to a logical syllogism, I'm just gonna throw a few out there for you. Neither sentence matters; the cake is a lie; never gonna give you up; u mad bro?

Here, this one looks easy: Paradox of the Court: "A law student agrees to pay his teacher after winning his first case. The teacher then sues the student (who has not yet won a case) for payment." (trust me, it makes more sense if you read the link).

They're looking at it all wrong, honestly. The law student has made an honest agreement with his teacher, and then when the student wins no cases, the teacher sues the student for the money he promised. Alright, now stop. The court is in session. They both present their cases, and the judge rules in favour of the student, saying that he doesn't have to pay the teacher since he has had no cases. So there is no suing happening, ya dig? The case is now over. The law student has won his first case. He remains true to his word and pays the teacher the money he promised him. Why is this even a problem? Oh right, 'cause the teacher gets mo' money, and mo' money is mo' problems. If the student had lost the case, however, he would have paid the teacher the money he promised him for winning a case, and now his debt is paid off in advance.

Crocodile Dilemma: If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned?

If there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's that crocodiles are thieving, conniving bastards; they never keep their word. Also, they can't talk, and they have a tendency to eat their meals (in this case, a delicious child. Is this the Crocodile Dilemma or the Pedo-bear dilemma? I forget). Here's how it's all gonna go down:

"Hey man, I stole your kid. If you guess what I'm gonna do with him, I'll return him!"

"You aren't gonna give him back, are you..."

"Damn straight I ain't, mutha sucka!"

"Aw, snicker doodles..."

"Actually, wait, you can have him back. In about two to three days! Muahahahaha!" *chomp* 

Bam, that's what I think. Send me some more paradoxes and I'll solve them for you.


P.S. I know I'm full of BS, but if you still feel inclined to tell me so in the comments, I welcome your hate with open arms. And I'm gonna give your hate a hug. 'Cause honestly, who can hate during a hug? Besides, people tell me I give awesome hugs.