2 ms·
You're talking about the opposite of what I said. My implication was 1 billion USD revenue => benefiting everybody Yours is Benefiting everybody => 1 billion
by mdpopescu 10y ago
You're talking about the opposite of what I said. My implication was
1 billion USD revenue => benefiting everybody
Yours is
Benefiting everybody => 1 billion USD revenue
I stand by the first but not by the second.
- xiaoma 10y agoYou said: "A is the definition of B" I said: "Here are some Bs that are not A" If you had said the definition of a kangaroo was "a big marsupial from Australia" and I pointed out many kangroos that weren't actually big marsupials from Australia, It would suggest that the definition was flawed.
- mdpopescu 10y ago> You said: "A is the definition of B" > I said: "Here are some Bs that are not A" Yes, and I pointed out that the two are unrelated. > If you had said the definition of a kangaroo was "a big marsupial from Australia" and I pointed out many kangroos that weren't actually big marsupials from Australia, It would suggest that the definition was flawed. If I had said that the definition of an A (kangaroo) is a B (big marsupial), and you pointed out that many As (kangaroos) aren't Bs (big marsupials), I would have been proven wrong. However, I said A (companies making a billion dollars in revenue) implies B (they benefit a lot of people) and you pointed out some Bs (companies benefiting everyone) that aren't As (companies making a billion dollars in revenue), which is irrelevant. This is basic logic, I learned it in fifth grade. A => B is not a commutative operation.