-------
I was thinking today... Why do all circles have to be round?
It just doesn't seem fair, restricting "circularity" that way. What if a triangle wanted to be round, too? Or a square?
I realize the very definition of what it means to be a circle--since eternity--requires roundness. And, I know most people say anything with angles just isn't a circle. It's "impossible." But think outside the box with me! Get with the 21st century! Just because we've always defined something one way doesn't mean it can't change...
From now on, I'm going to push for acceptance of the "square circle."
I'll picket at the courthouse and call my congressmen. I'll talk about square circles every time I'm in public. I'll put "square circles" in the newspaper and on TV, so everyone can see square circles are funny and they have good fashion sense. Actually, they're really not much different from regular circles. (Or, as I sometimes differentiate, "traditional circles.")
Come to think of it, just putting "square circles" and "traditional circles" in two different categories constitutes inequality. Why should there be a separate title for circles with angled-tendencies? Notify the press! Spread the word! Using a special adjective for one circle or another is narrow-minded and bigoted. It's time to move on and forget we ever prevented square circles from being circles at all...
Sorry if I'm going on and on about something you think is unimportant (or even downright nonsensical). My aim isn't to offend. I only want to be heard. And to have a couple holidays devoted to circularity. And to have my agenda taught in schools. And to be signed into law. Is that so bad?
I guess you could say it's very dear to me--the issue of square circles.
Or, as I like to call them:
"CIRCLES."
No comments:
Post a Comment