Second batch of Cyberpunk drama is out!

[NaffNaffBobFace]

She needs to go drown in a fire.

Now now, lets not go saying anything those who we would like to go away can use against us.

We learned that when He Who Shall Not Be Given The Oxygen Of Publicity started making slights against TEST. Many of the suggestions of where he could forcefully relocate his opinion of The Best Squardon were then copied and used for his vile alternate agenda, claiming people who played SC were bum-ends making it look like we are a big bunch of jerks wheras we are perfectly normal well adjusted individuals who had been provoked into responding to the most heinous of slanders.

Remember: Being an asshole to assholes, is still being an asshole.

I'm not suggesting you're an asshole by the way. Or that this rich and famous from consulting consultant is. It's just a really good way to put it.

 

[Deroth]

Now now, lets not go saying anything those who we would like to go away can use against us.

We learned that when He Who Shall Not Be Given The Oxygen Of Publicity started making slights against TEST. Many of the suggestions of where he could forcefully relocate his opinion of The Best Squardon were then copied and used for his vile alternate agenda, claiming people who played SC were bum-ends making it look like we are a big bunch of jerks wheras we are perfectly normal well adjusted individuals who had been provoked into responding to the most heinous of slanders.

Remember: Being an asshole to assholes, is still being an asshole.

I'm not suggesting you're an asshole by the way. Or that this rich and famous from consulting consultant is. It's just a really good way to put it.

I've revised my comment, better?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I've revised my comment, better?

As your self appointed consultant I can't possibly advise until your latest cheque arrives... I didn't get the last one by the way... or the one before that...?

Quality advice/opinion like this can't just be given away for free you know.

 

[Vavrik]

@NaffNaffBobFace and @Deroth have the weekly prize for making me laugh like ... like... wait it did sound a little like a hyena, so never mind.

 

[Bambooza]

As your self appointed consultant I can't possibly advise until your latest cheque arrives... I didn't get the last one by the way... or the one before that...?

Quality advice/opinion like this can't just be given away for free you know.

I'd say its worthy of a beer or two. So pay up @Deroth and buy this man a pint.

 

[August]

Bum-ends. Hah.

 

[Printimus]

Stop making stupid people famous.

 

[Grimm_Reaper]

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Wait a minute... if all men are pigs... and women are the same as men... then all women are...?

I always knew humanity could try harder. Pigs, the lot of you. Me? I'm a Wheelie Bin with an unhappy face painted on the side. Proofs there in my Avatar <--

 

[ShakyWater]

Just gonna leave this here. She's broke.

View: https://youtu.be/l4FiCg6uGC4

 

[DirectorGunner]

Spoiler: Very long exercise

the conclusion from that being, therefore, women must be pigs, is called a mismatched concept.
Terms used do not match to come to that conclusion.

Simplify to sufficient and necessary
If man (sufficient) then pig (necessary)
^ that's a logic statement, we can use that in a syllogism.
contrapositive: if not pig then not man

Women are <--- okay "ARE" is absolute certainty so might be logic, let us continue...
Women "are equal to" wait.. what is that actually saying/mean?
Women are not men, by definition of the terms.
Possible equivocation happening here on the use of the term "equal"
instead of being correctly used to represent "women are men",
it instead is likely meant as women are equally capable as men.
So
If woman (sufficient) then equally capable as a man (necessary)
contra: If not equally capable as a man then not a woman

Rebuild it
if man then pig
If woman then equally capable as a man
therefor woman then pig
^The conclusion doesn't follow.

Logic works like this
If A then B
if B then C
Therefore A then C, or not C then not A
eg
if man then pig
if pig them woman
if man then woman, or if not woman then not man

It does NOT work like this
If A then B
if C then D
Therefor C then B
eg
if man then pig
if woman then "capable as man"
therefor woman then pig
^ the two first statements don't have matching terms, so conclusion can't be made from combining the statements.
No matching terms, dead end

Although, since we're using equivocations... "pigs"
I am not a pig and I am a man, therefore not all men are pigs.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

the conclusion from that being, therefore, women must be pigs, is called a mismatched concept.
Terms used do not match to come to that conclusion.

Simplify to sufficient and necessary
If man (sufficient) then pig (necessary)
^ that's a logic statement, we can use that in a syllogism.
contrapositive: if not pig then not man

Women are <--- okay "ARE" is absolute certainty so might be logic, let us continue...
Women "are equal to" wait.. what is that actually saying/mean?
Women are not men, by definition of the terms.
Possible equivocation happening here on the use of the term "equal"
instead of being correctly used to represent "women are men",
it instead is likely meant as women are equally capable as men.
So
If woman (sufficient) then equally capable as a man (necessary)
contra: If not equally capable as a man then not a woman

Rebuild it
if man then pig
If woman then equally capable as a man
therefor woman then pig
^The conclusion doesn't follow.

Logic works like this
If A then B
if B then C
Therefore A then C, or not C then not A
eg
if man then pig
if pig them woman
if man then woman, or if not woman then not man

It does NOT work like this
If A then B
if C then D
Therefor C then B
eg
if man then pig
if woman then "capable as man"
therefor woman then pig
^ the two first statements don't have matching terms, so conclusion can't be made from combining the statements.
No matching terms, dead end

Although, since we're using equivocations... "pigs"
I am not a pig and I am a man, therefore not all men are pigs.

You are randomly assigning things to the original argument (which only clearly states that A=B C=A, thus the logical conclusion C=B).
Your argument is built on the assumption that "equal" means something else than it's pure meaning and so C =/= A but = D . What "equal" stands for changes to your liking , yet it ignores the same for "are", although it's safe to assume (and basic math demands) that you treat it the same way. If I correctly add my arbitrary argument to Both sides of the equation, and change that arbitrary value to let's say "equal in behavior" for both "are" and "equal", suddenly your argument is invalid and the originally intended logical conclusion is achieved:
A (men) = B (behave like pigs)
C (women) = in behavior to A (men)
Thus C = B

See, Logic is fun when you twist it

 

[Bruttle]

Have you ever seen soccer (or football depending on your nationality) players faking injuries? That's what this reminds me of. It's just a small group of people just waiting to misunderstand, misrepresent, take out of context, and generally twist the narrative to suit their offended status. In all likelihood, they were offended before they even saw anything offensive. It never ceases to amaze me how far certain people will go to find a way to be offended.

Basically, this is what I see...

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

You are randomly assigning things to the original argument (which only clearly states that A=B C=A, thus the logical conclusion C=B).
Your argument is built on the assumption that "equal" means something else than it's pure meaning and so C =/= A but = D . What "equal" stands for changes to your liking , yet it ignores the same for "are", although it's safe to assume (and basic math demands) that you treat it the same way. If I correctly add my arbitrary argument to Both sides of the equation, and change that arbitrary value to let's say "equal in behavior" for both "are" and "equal", suddenly your argument is invalid and the originally intended logical conclusion is achieved:
A (men) = B (behave like pigs)
C (women) = in behavior to A (men)
Thus C = B

See, Logic is fun when you twist it

Well lets just have a bit more of a think here...

If men = pigs and women = men, who = pigs, then pigs must also = men, who women =, meaning pigs = not only men but women too... meaning pigs = humans.

So taking this to it's logical conclusion if pigs = humans, whoever has eaten bacon or other pork products has indulged in cannibalism...

 

[Deroth]

DS is a bloviating ignoramus.
AS is a bloviating ignoramus.

Therefore, AS is DS in drag.

 

[Vavrik]

Therefore, AS is DS in drag.

Hmm. When I compare that with the argument presented here... it could work. But it isn't true that A = B, unless it's also true that men = women, and we know there are some differences, so it's not true. That means that DS and AS are two examples of ignoramus, and ... wait a sec, I just had a horrible thought. I had bacon for breakfast...

 

[SoloFlyer]

Well lets just have a bit more of a think here...

If men = pigs and women = men, who = pigs, then pigs must also = men, who women =, meaning pigs = not only men but women too... meaning pigs = humans.

So taking this to it's logical conclusion if pigs = humans, whoever has eaten bacon or other pork products has indulged in cannibalism...

Isn't that why they used to refer to eating people as eating long pork

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Well lets just have a bit more of a think here...

If men = pigs and women = men, who = pigs, then pigs must also = men, who women =, meaning pigs = not only men but women too... meaning pigs = humans.

So taking this to it's logical conclusion if pigs = humans, whoever has eaten bacon or other pork products has indulged in cannibalism...

Sooo, if I'm out of bacon, but I want bacon, like now while I'm writing this, I should eat the wife?

 

[DirectorGunner]

I can't tell if you're being serious or joking?

A (men) = B (behave like pigs)
C (women) = in behavior to A (men)
Thus C = B

The sufficient term
A (men)
does NOT match the necessary term
in behavior to A (men)

Those are the two terms that have to match in order to make a valid conclusion C=B
This is called a mismatch concept.

So fight me!

lol, I've been busting ass studying for the LSAT, bring it!

Edit: I mean symbolically ofc, I will fight with words/logic. And digital space ship pew pews

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Sooo, if I'm out of bacon, but I want bacon, like now while I'm writing this, I should eat the wife?

I think this is the final logical conclusion that proves no, men are not pigs and neither are women, or we'd all be eating our wives which we obviously aren't.