4 ms·
Because you've set up the comparison in an illogical fashion it inevitably leads to nonsense. > Well the same reason you don't share your email with the FBI an
by _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
Because you've set up the comparison in an illogical fashion it inevitably leads to nonsense.
> Well the same reason you don't share your email with the FBI and agree to be monitored at all times.
So if G=government requires me to do thing X, and X=I do thing X
G→¬X
G
-----
¬X
and then:
> I wear a mask, and I choose to wear a mask. I also wore a mask before it was "supported" by the CDC. If tomorrow it was legally required, I would stop wearing a mask.
assuming that again G=government requires me to do thing X, and X=I do thing X, you're saying that
G→¬X
G
-----
¬X
and also (because you have been wearing a mask):
¬G→X
¬G
-----
X
So then the "for the same reason" doesn't make sense. It invites the idea that the two cases are parallel, and the only logical way I see of forcing them to be parallel is if:
¬G→X
¬G
-----
X
is also true in the case of the FBI and emails.
How is it "for the same reason" otherwise?
- vorpalhex 6y agohttps://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirmi... You've also treated two unrelated statements as dependent clauses.
- _emacsomancer_ 6y agoI know enough logic not to need your links, thank you. And, no, my point was that you have tried to relate, in a hand-wavy fashion, two unrelated statements. So you can't say "it's for the same reason".