▲ 831 ▼ Resources (mander.xyz) submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 241 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -4 points 1 year ago* (9 children) Why? I'm not the one using it to justify an argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -3 points 1 year ago (7 children) It's not my job to make your point. You don't get free labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) So you didn't read it either? Interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brianary@lemmy.zip -4 points 1 year ago* (9 children) Why? I'm not the one using it to justify an argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -3 points 1 year ago (7 children) It's not my job to make your point. You don't get free labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) So you didn't read it either? Interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -3 points 1 year ago (7 children) It's not my job to make your point. You don't get free labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) So you didn't read it either? Interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brianary@lemmy.zip -3 points 1 year ago (7 children) It's not my job to make your point. You don't get free labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) So you didn't read it either? Interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) So you didn't read it either? Interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brianary@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 year ago (5 children) So you didn't read it either? Interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brianary@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense. You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication. Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
