Business email: info@contrapoints.com
Since my detractors claim to care about logic so goddamn much, let's talk about logic.
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)
-
-
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 -
-
-
Part of the misread obeys cmmnsense dictum: you can't get inside the skulls of people and have to operate on linguistic behaviorism
-
Therefore, for practical living purposes they view it as necessarily inverted. They don't go to the lgicl cnclsion: All speech matters
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Symbolic Logic was one of my fave classes, so I'm having way too much fun reading this thread.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm much better at mathing than I am at wording, so I should start structuring my arguments in the form of an equation from now on
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I loved your video, and now you are doing first order predicate calculus
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Can't argue with math.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
-
-
I have no idea what this means but I'm sure it is sassy and correct
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.