Re: I'm on a boat.
 

Why don't you correct my grammatical errors.

The first statement is a simple if then

(P -> Q)

The second statement is the same substituting if with when and omitting then.

The third sentence is a simple sentence with no logical connectives.

The forth is an overly worded sentence using and as the logical connective that could have been tautologically correct if I had also written it like

"It is not the case that if I was not just poking at you because you were acting like an authority on an arbitrary subject that has an associated racial stigma attached to a good I happen to like, then you took it too far.

The fifth sentence could be written as such, also.

The diagram for that is

~(~P->Q)


I'll continue preaching to you about premises as that final argument is logically invalid. It is not the case that if there are inconsistencies in my delivery, that my statement is untrue.

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

You have got to be the most retarded smart kid to come out of a corn field in the history of mankind. :S

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

i got a diagram for ya
8==============D

jd prolly peed his pants a little reading this thread.

he couldnt argue against caleb either 8)

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

JD can argue with me, that's why our IM conversations are so contentious.

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

Better still ----> ( . )( . )

Or if they've push one out -----> ( o )( o )

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

I pick my public arguments carefully, rawr is crafty and I do not know what would do against his xor.

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

It's the inclusive or that you've got to watch out for.

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

I prefer boolean logic. It's not anywhere near simple once you start bitwise manipulations and left/right shifts, but at least (unlike your legalese inclusive or) it's honest.

Re: I'm on a boat.
 

You can't stop me "I'm on a boat" O0