Business email: info@contrapoints.com
Since my detractors claim to care about logic so goddamn much, let's talk about logic.
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)
-
-
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 -
-
-
If I is false A is false. From existential to universal is a Superimposition. If I is true A is unknown. I'm guessing hyperbole?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
formal logic gets me so fucking hot
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Okay, but what do you make of all of this then? How exactly do you act toward the superposition of a fascist and a nonfascist?
- 2 more replies
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.