London may have gone into a Covid-accelerated decline

Re:London may have gone into a Covid-accelerated decline by _emacsomancer_ on Saturday May 23, 2020 @10:31PM (#23288605)

So if the FBI didn't want to monitor everyone all the time, then you'd volunteer to be monitored?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London may have gone into a Covid-accelerated decline by vorpalhex on Sunday May 24, 2020 @12:10AM (#23289004)

No? You have a logic flaw here, you've inverted the consequent, which does not imply an inverted antecedent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London may have gone into a Covid-accelerated decline by _emacsomancer_ on Sunday May 24, 2020 @12:50AM (#23289188)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London may have gone into a Covid-accelerated decline by vorpalhex on Sunday May 24, 2020 @01:25AM (#23289345)

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirmi...

You've also treated two unrelated statements as dependent clauses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:London may have gone into a Covid-accelerated decline by _emacsomancer_ on Sunday May 24, 2020 @01:50AM (#23289438)

I 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".

[ Parent | on HN ]