why did Seymour Skinner's dad look exactly like Armin Tamzarian?
>>222826288he looks exactly like a skinny skinner toodid armin have glasses?
>>222826288Simpsons jumped the shark with season 2 since season 1 was more of a King of the Hill type show about a working class dad trying to take care of his family.
>>222826288>Armin Tamzariannon-canon
>This show that has been on for nearly 40 years isn't canon guysYeah Homer went from getting his job at the power plant in 1980 to being a teenager in the mid 90s
>>222826288Grandpa's memory isn't what it used to be so he just remembers everyone as the same as their kids are now, in this case he mistakenly believes Skinner's dad to be like Skinner because he can't remember what the actual man was like. But none of them actually were like that except the few he did remember like Burns, Ox, Etch and Griff.
>>222826679>this episode was further lampshaded as being non-canon in the non-canon muckumentary episode Behind the LaughterThat's a double negation. According to basic propositional logic, that means the episode IS canon actually.
>>222826462Season 1 was kinda unfunny though
>>222826679>>222826816Here faggot, I did the whole math for you because I explained myself poorly.Your dumb statement is essentially: "the episode The Principal and the Pauper was established as being non-canon in the non-canon mockumentary episode Behind the Laughter.”By formalizing your argument before we start, get the following statements:P = “The Principal and the Pauper is canon.”Q = “Behind the Laughter is canon.”E = “The statement made in Behind the Laughter establishes the canon status of the first episode.”And for the record since I assume you're ignorant: ¬ is a negation, is a conditional ("if"/"then"), and is a biconditional ("if and only if").The nonsensical premises of your dumbass argument therefore are:1. ¬PThe Principal and the Pauper is stated to be non-canon.2. ¬QBehind the Laughter is non-canon.3. ¬Q ¬EIf Behind the Laughter is non-canon, then a statement made in it cannot establish the canon status of The Principal and the Pauper.
>>222826679>>222826816>>222827244And just for the keks, we can establish an additional rule:4. E ¬PThe Principal and the Pauper is non-canon "if and only if" the statement made in Behind the Laughter establishes it as non-canon.In other words:E ¬P≡ (E ¬P) ∧ (¬P E)This gives us two options:a. E ¬P (If the statement establishes the episode as non-canon, then The Principal and the Pauper is non-canon).b. ¬P E (If The Principal and the Pauper is non-canon, then that statement establishes it as non-canon).Now, from b, we can use contraposition: ¬E ¬¬PSince Behind the Laughter is itself non-canon (¬Q), and we established back in point 3: ¬Q ¬Ewe can conclude: ¬EIn other words: “A statement made in a non-canon episode cannot establish another episode as non-canon.”Now we apply rule 4: ¬E ¬¬PBy the law of double negation that I mentioned in my first post: ¬¬P ≡ PTherefore: PAnd P means:“The Principal and the Pauper is canon.”So the complete chain is:¬Q ¬E ¬¬P PTherefore, The Principal and the Pauper is canon, and you're a faggot and a loser. Suck my balls anon, you piece of shit ragebaiting retard.
>>222826679Lisa mentions Armin Tamzarian in Season 15 or so (and doesn't even get tortured).
>>222826462season 1 & 2 are both borderline unwatchable, i don't wanna hear shit about how "season 10 is bad"
