You forgot about being neutral my guy. You’ve chosen extreme examples where people are much more likely to have a strong opinion, but that doesn’t make you right.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is either pro-swimming or doesn’t care about swimming so long as you don’t try and stop other people.
By your logic every ally is gay. If John (straight man in this example) is anti-anti-gay then he must be gay. You’ve reached a contradiction, thus you are wrong.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is pro-swimming. Clearly he cares enough to think that people should not be prevented from swimming. Therefore he is pro-swimming. He supports and enables swimming. If he was neutral, he would not be anti-anti-swimming or have any other for-against opinion on the matter.
Let me try again because you haven’t gotten it yet. Pro-swimming means he actively wants people to swim. If you are just against stopping people from swimming, that doesn’t mean you want to force everyone to swim.
I mean there isn’t, but also if you want to show other people are wrong (the racists) then you need to know what being wrong is and how to show that. This person doesn’t know and so would be detrimental in an actual debate as their points could be disproven and the racists would then believe themselves right. You have to make your arguments unasailable because the other side only want to prove you wrong, they don’t think they have to prove themselves right.
Literally the movement is pro-choice not pro-abortion.
Pro-legalisation obviously doesn’t mean that, it means you want it legalised, how is this relevant? Also pro-legalisation doesn’t mean it wants legalisation to be permissible, it already is.
you are providing examples where language is consistent with an algebraic formulation, and ignoring examples where it clearly is not.
if examples of both exist, then you plainly cannot treat language like algebra, because it’s not always correct.
you only need one counter-example to disprove a thesis. instead of discussing the counter examples provided, you think that providing more examples of consistency contributed to the conversation.
sorry, but they don’t. that’s not how logic works.
You forgot about being neutral my guy. You’ve chosen extreme examples where people are much more likely to have a strong opinion, but that doesn’t make you right.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is either pro-swimming or doesn’t care about swimming so long as you don’t try and stop other people.
By your logic every ally is gay. If John (straight man in this example) is anti-anti-gay then he must be gay. You’ve reached a contradiction, thus you are wrong.
If John is anti-anti-swimming, then John is pro-swimming. Clearly he cares enough to think that people should not be prevented from swimming. Therefore he is pro-swimming. He supports and enables swimming. If he was neutral, he would not be anti-anti-swimming or have any other for-against opinion on the matter.
This is not difficult logic to grasp.
Let me try again because you haven’t gotten it yet. Pro-swimming means he actively wants people to swim. If you are just against stopping people from swimming, that doesn’t mean you want to force everyone to swim.
Removed by mod
I mean there isn’t, but also if you want to show other people are wrong (the racists) then you need to know what being wrong is and how to show that. This person doesn’t know and so would be detrimental in an actual debate as their points could be disproven and the racists would then believe themselves right. You have to make your arguments unasailable because the other side only want to prove you wrong, they don’t think they have to prove themselves right.
Being pro-abortion does not mean someone wants everyone to have an abortion.
Being pro-LGBTQ+ does not mean someone wants everyone to be queer.
Being pro-legalization does not mean someone wants everyone to do recreational drugs.
It means a person believes those things should be permissible.
Literally the movement is pro-choice not pro-abortion.
Pro-legalisation obviously doesn’t mean that, it means you want it legalised, how is this relevant? Also pro-legalisation doesn’t mean it wants legalisation to be permissible, it already is.
Darn, I have been sucked into a debate with a bad faith troll. That is definitely on me.
Genuinely not my intention, what did I do in bad faith?
the logic is simple, but you are ignoring it.
you are providing examples where language is consistent with an algebraic formulation, and ignoring examples where it clearly is not.
if examples of both exist, then you plainly cannot treat language like algebra, because it’s not always correct.
you only need one counter-example to disprove a thesis. instead of discussing the counter examples provided, you think that providing more examples of consistency contributed to the conversation.
sorry, but they don’t. that’s not how logic works.
Removed by mod