Happy Thanksgiving

Typical ignorant uneducated fool; not everyone celebrates thanksgiving as you do. Therefore, you cannot say 'all' but rather "Americans". This date is an American holiday.

Shove your happy Thanksgiving up your ass.

Angeldust,

Magis,

You sir are a weak little child; your lucky i'm behind this keyboard and not there... otherwise, I may throw some onstar down your throat and put you to work cotton picking in the fields and give you a 15 minute break on every non-american holiday.

Angeldust,

Oh, but is trolling a factual premise that's indicative of maturity? If Troll(X) -> Immature(X) can you honestly say ~Immature(X) -> ~Troll(X) for all internet users? If only the Brazilian's had my high level of intellect.

The fact remains Magis, that you  will respond to my posts. I am willing to bet money on it. Now see, the outcome played out here is a win for me regardless, I hope you see that.

Angeldust,

Hempz 1 - Angeldust 0

..and now for the weather 

At the very least, Mumblenutts, I can honestly say you've never given me the impression of stupidity; however, while on the subject of basic essential logic, your converse error is blatant. You've stated that a lack education implies acting "like Angeldust" and have assumed that the converse is true; acting like Angeldust must mean "not educated enough". This is your folly for not considering that "acting like Angeldust" is vacuously true as influenced by other scenarios. One must always be careful when playing with logic, as such only the contrapositive would hold true as you clearly know from identifying Modus Tollens. Don't get me wrong, while I do mock and identify your flawed logic, I do commend your efforts.

Angeldust,

Last edited by Angeldust (December 4th, 2012 7:20 PM)

You did though, and because your such a homosexual muff diver, I will take this moment of pleasure in pointing out your errors in logic with a proof.

Your stated premises:
~(Educated enough(A))
Refer[enc]ing modus tollens(A)
Refer[enc]ing modus tollens(A) --> Educated(A)
~(Educated enough(A)) --> ~(refrain from acting like Angeldust(A))

Conclusion:
Acting like Angeldust(A) --> beyond your comprehension

PROOF:

Refer[enc]ing modus tollens(A) --> Educated(A)
Refer[enc]ing modus tollens(A)
Therefore Angeldust is Educated [by Modus Ponens]

~(Educated enough(A)) --> ~(refrain from acting like Angeldust(A))
~(Educated enough(A))
Therefore ~(refrain from acting like Angeldust(A)) by Modus Ponens

~(refrain from acting like Angeldust(A))
Therefore Acting like Angeldust(A) [by rule of double negation]

Conclusion:
Acting like Angeldust(A) --> beyond your comprehension
Acting like Angeldust(A)
Therefore beyond your comprehension

QED!

Now, your argument is valid, but your premises are being concluded using circular logic and a blatant converse error. Your premise states not being educated enough would imply acting like angeldust, then you use the converse error to conclude that Acting like Angeldust(A) implies ~(Educated enough(A)). Do not go circle jerking your predicates into a premise or conversely making bad logical manipulations.

Gave you too much credit, I honestly thought you would of been slightly more intelligent.

Angeldust,

Last edited by Angeldust (December 11th, 2012 4:38 PM)

Possibly, correlation may of been intended; however, there was most certainly the possibility of an implicit relationship derived from your observations. Either way, translation to formal proof from language by someone other than the author is never as accurate as intended. I have no choice to take your word for it, and continue on my merry way of bashing.

It's kind of ironic that you, the MumbleNutts, have provided me the most entertainment on these forums, yet. Continue as if you we're normal; there may be hope for you yet.

Angeldust,