Business email: info@contrapoints.com
Since my detractors claim to care about logic so goddamn much, let's talk about logic.
Show this thread
In my last video, I claimed that fascists often claim not to be fascists.
-
-
The best way to render this logically would be "there is some x such that x is a fascist and x denies being a fascist"
Show this thread -
i.e., ∃x(Fx & Dx) where F means "is a fascist" and D means "denies being a fascist."
Show this thread -
Another vaguely plausible interpretation would be "for every x, if x is a fascist then x denies being a fascist," i.e., ∀x(Fx → Dx)
Show this thread -
But instead, my detractors are rendering it, "for every x, if x denies being a fascist then x is a fascist." That is, ∀x(Dx → Fx)
Show this thread -
But that is a completely idiotic way to interpret what I said. You have the conditional backwards. You dinguses. You fools.
Show this thread -
Okay I'm losing my mind I need to stop reading comments.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.