I can't tell if you're being serious or joking?
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
Wait, your game has rules? I'm out!
So yeah, I'm just trolling lol I have no clue what this Logic thing is, unless it's some ios app that makes hard bass.
Seriously though, I don't know what the definitions of stuff like neccesary and sufficient and such are in this case, so I'm just talking out of my ass here =)
Now just to play along a bit more cos I'm quiet enjoying learning about this logic stuff:
From my laymens point of view you applied an arbitrary definition to "equal" and built your argument upon that. Although your definition is most likely the one that was original meant by it, without context, there is no proof of this.
So I did the same with a less likely definition I came up with, but in my case I applied my definition to both "men are" and "equal" thus explaining my argument. As it can be seen that in reality men are not pigs in every possible meaning such as in shape, size etc, so can one argue that women are not equal to men in every meaning of the word.
If I were some sorta judge or teacher or something, I would require both me and you to agree upon the meaning of "equal" first, as it defines the outcome of the argument.
So what did we learn today kids?
Context Matters!
I think I finally understand your arguments, and yes you are correct. But you were only correct assuming my description/math was correct, but I messed up! Lol
As for my original argument let's try this again by ignoring the arbitrary definitions, but accepting that those definitions are the same for both "are" and "equal", thus making both of those equal.
So we are left with:
A : Men
B : pigs
C : Women
The "=" sign : "are" or "equal" (this is where I messed up last time. If we accept whatever "equal" means is the same as whatever "are" means, it's the only way the maths makes sense. Of course if we accept that men are a 100% exactly the same as pigs, but women for some reason only equal men in an arbitrary factor, then it falls apart, but that's not what I'm arguing here)
A = B
C = A
C = B = A
Conclusion : we are all bacon?
Ps: I do realize that one could argue for ages over how "equal" is not the same meaning as "are" or "the same as" or "the equivalent of" because English words carry context within them, and while may translate to the same word in another language they are used in different contexts for different meanings. English is my second language so I do not know these well enough to make a valid argument.
