And the man said "you should be stripped of your apron!?"
lol damn son.
You got STAND Tall my man.
WWG1WG Raaaaaaalllph
it sucked maher is a total fuck
meh
both doctrines countering each other (last paragraph)
are true, it is merely that the first proposal of truth is dependent on mind(s) and the other upon outside objective world.
In other words; you and I both agree about the rules of the english language; you and I make it true through are agreed usage, (even though we could be pricks and debate fine points and grammar)
So Valid argument forms and logic can be "The Truth" as a conscious agreement; we know love, anger, fear, thoughts, but cannot externally, objectively prove it.
The other says truth dependent on outside objective world. But I believe the first contains the objective truth
because
crazy is
as crazy does, and it works for me.
Stop being interesting, tits or gtfo.
everyone of any importance gets one of these attacks.
thats interesting…
it was modus tollens anon; i had to look it up too. I didnt know the formal way its used.
The inverse is kind of a proof, like in math when balancing an equation; thats how its meant; you are quite right to point out the word "real" has multiple meanings in the context.
Some syllogisms are false because they use one meaning for a term in one line and then change the meaning of the same term in the next.
The first sentence 'proof by inference' is clumsily written, in hindsight; I trusted that anon gave me the "principal of charity' where you dont target the person over a gaff, when you know what they mean to say.