hogg is tacky
the burial porta potty is not as decorative
but is deep enough to hold plenty of remains of cabalists after the honeymoon
stfu
look at all these "chuckenhawk" homosexuals
calling themselves paytriots
maybe if frumpo eats hogg
the world can be saved from shitposts
and crappy memes
what is potty training zombies by hynosis
btw, seized cocaine they try and steal with their ciascalp necromancy
look
it is a bemis on frumpos face
this board is really fucking annoying without chronic
trannyshillin whores going double oval
i sure hope that cia death cult isn;t trying to queer something elese desperately for it;s beloved cocaine dilution necromancy for the fake jews of hogg cult in hollywood
false kittehs
jews 29
trump 28
warning CP lord and proctor of pedogate photo
who wants to see some high ranking anon ??
if you block yahoo.com:80 on your phone firewall, the cia loses it's mind
is that a threat made by a "peking duck" or a pathetic fronthole worshipper
the cia likes to snoop through the iphone weather widget
zombies can;t bake a cake
and pedoraptors can;t dance
like replerbicans can;t pay taxes
if ya tint the hair and cover it in orange makeup, it doesn;t look sooooo much like death
but it's trannyshilin ways can't be hidden
what is the ore files were just a way to hide the hillary tapes from russia, but the avarice was too great
a couple grenades should renovate that biltmore pool nicely if we stuff enough fehgels into it first ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
look at all those judas fehgels cutting their own throat on a pedoraptor chan board
A statement {\displaystyle S} S is "vacuously true" if it resembles the statement {\displaystyle P\Rightarrow Q} P\Rightarrow Q, where {\displaystyle P} P is known to be false.
Statements that can be reduced (with suitable transformations) to this basic form include the following universally quantified statements:
{\displaystyle \forall x:P(x)\Rightarrow Q(x)} \forall x:P(x)\Rightarrow Q(x), where it is the case that {\displaystyle \forall x:\neg P(x)} \forall x:\neg P(x).
{\displaystyle \forall x\in A:Q(x)} \forall x\in A:Q(x), where the set {\displaystyle A} A is empty.
{\displaystyle \forall \xi :Q(\xi )} \forall \xi :Q(\xi ), where the symbol {\displaystyle \xi } \xi is restricted to a type that has no representatives.
Vacuous truth most commonly appears in classical logic, which in particular is two-valued. However, vacuous truth also appears in, for example, intuitionistic logic in the same situations given above. Indeed, if {\displaystyle P} P is false, {\displaystyle P\Rightarrow Q} P\Rightarrow Q will yield vacuous truth in any logic that uses the material conditional; if {\displaystyle P} P is a necessary falsehood, then it will also yield vacuous truth under the strict conditional.
Other non-classical logics (for example, relevance logic) may attempt to avoid vacuous truths by using alternative conditionals (for example, the counterfactual conditional).
utside of mathematics, statements which can be characterized informally as vacuously true can be misleading. Such statements make reasonable assertions about qualified objects which do not actually exist. For example, a child might tell his or her parent "I ate every vegetable on my plate", when there were no vegetables on the child's plate to begin with.
More formally, a relatively well-defined usage refers to a conditional statement with a false antecedent. One example of such a statement is "if Uluru is in France, then the Eiffel Tower is in Bolivia". Such statements are considered vacuous because the fact that the antecedent is false prevents using the statement to infer anything about the truth value of the consequent. They are true because a material conditional is defined to be true when the antecedent is false (regardless of whether the conclusion is true).
In pure mathematics, vacuously true statements are not generally of interest by themselves, but they frequently arise as the base case of proofs by mathematical induction.[1] This notion has relevance in pure mathematics, as well as in any other field which uses classical logic.
A double-barreled question (sometimes, double-direct question[1]) is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer.[2][3][4] This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being answered.[5]
Many double-barreled questions can be detected by the existence of the grammatical conjunction "and" in them.[2][3] This is not a foolproof test, as the word "and" can exist in properly constructed questions.
A question asking about three items is known as "trible (triple, treble)-barreled".[4] In legal proceedings, a double-barreled question is called a compound question.[
An example of a double-barreled question would be the following: "do you think that students should have more classes about history and culture?" This question asks about two different issues: "do you think that students should have more classes about history" and "do you think that students should have more classes about culture?" Combining both questions into one makes it unclear what exactly is being measured, and as each question may elicit a different response if asked separately there is an increased likelihood of confusing the respondents.[2] In other words, while some respondents would answer "yes" to both and some "no" to both, some would like to answer both "yes and no".[4]
Other examples of double-barreled questions:
"Please agree or disagree with the following statement: Cars should be faster and safer."[3]
"How satisfied are you with your pay and job conditions?"[4]
"How often and how much time do you spend on each visit to a hospital?"[5]
"Does your department have a special recruitment policy for men and women?"[5]
"Do you think that there is a good market for the product and that it will sell well?"
"Should the government spend less money on the military and more on education?"
"Is this tool interesting and useful?"
The same considerations apply to questions with fixed choice answers, as an answer can also be double-barreled. For example, if a question asks, "What motivates you to work?" an answer "Pleasant work and nice co-workers" is double-barreled.[4]
Buttering-up is a type of a double-barreled question. It happens when one of the questions is a question that the questioned person will want to answer "yes" to, and another that the questioner hopes will be answered with the same "yes". For example, "Would you be a nice guy and lend me five bucks?"
Some questions may not be double-barreled but confusingly similar enough to a double-barreled question to result in similar issues. For example, the question "Should the organization reduce paperwork required of employees by hiring more administrators?" can be interpreted as composed of two questions: "Should the organization reduce paperwork required of employees?" and "Should the organization hire more administrators?"
Double-barreled questions have been asked by professionals, resulting in notable skewed media reports and research pieces. For example, Harris Poll used double-barreled questions in the 1980s, investigating the US public opinion on Libya–United States relations, and American attitudes toward Mikhail Gorbachev.[7]
In a legal trial, a compound question may raise an objection,[8] as the witness may be unable to provide a clear answer to the inquiry.
One guide to trial practice offers the following example of a compound question:[9]
Cross-examiner: As you approached the intersection, did you look down, change the radio station, and then look up and for the first time notice the oncoming car?
Opponent: Objection, compound question.
An example in practice has been cited in the case of Weise v. Rainville (1959) 173 CA2d 496, 506, where the objection to such a question was sustained because such a question "raises the danger that the witness does not intend to reply to both questions" when answering "yes" to the compound question.[10] It may also be unclear to the court, jurors, or appellate bodies, what the witness intended in answering the question; and such a question may combine a request for relevant information with a request for information that is irrelevant or inadmissable.[10] If the question is one for which the answer will not be harmful to the opposing attorney's case, then the attorney need not object at all; alternately, the opposing attorney may object, and specify when objecting that he would not object to a rephrasing of the question into separate, non-compound parts.[10]
Compound questions are most frequently asked during cross-examination.[11]
A complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called "complex" because it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.[1]
Complex questions can but do not have to be fallacious, as in being an informal fallacy.[1]
Closely connected with [petitio principii] is the fallacy of the Complex Question. By a complex question, in the broadest meaning of that term, is meant one that suggests its own answer. Any question, for instance, that forces us to select, and assert in our answer to it, one of the elements of the question itself, while some other possibility is really open, is complex in the sense in which that term is here employed. If, for example, one were to ask whether you were going to New York or London, or if your favourite colour were red or blue, or if you had given up a particular bad habit, he would be guilty of the fallacy of the complex question, if, in each case, the alternatives, as a matter of fact, were more numerous than, or were in any way different from, those stated in the question. Any leading question which complicates an issue by over simplification is fallacious for the same reason… In the petitio principii an assumption with respect to the subject-matter of an argument functions as a premise, in the complex question it is a similar assumption that shuts out some of the material possibilities of a situation and confines an issue within too narrow limits. As in the former case, so here, the only way of meeting the difficulty is to raise the previous question, that is, to call the assumption which lies back of the fallacy into question.[13]
— Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" in A Text-Book of Logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-barreled_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
fishing for emotions on a pedoraptor board is soooo tacky
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.
(2^8 /0) is irrational
do ya'll chan homos still send Jehovah witnesses and pizza prank orders to asshats that disrupt boards with personal diarrhea ??
asking for a friend