It’s [x]. A rational argument should survive substitution, no?

It’s [x]. A rational argument should survive substitution, no?

==

“ANYONE who thinks [x] somehow ‘proves’ [y] is a fucking IDIOT.

(Don’t be offended if you are one of these people. LEARN the reasons why your belief is wrong by understanding the fallacious beliefs underpinning it.)”

==

It might. I’m just trying to help you establish stronger arguments for the future.

I didn’t actually read the noun clauses. I was reading the structure

===

Whether I am or you are or not is irrelevant, unless offense is an important part of your logic chain.

Should I add “offense” as an important part of your logic?

==

An idiot is defined as someone who
holds a belief that

x = “the Big Bang HYPOTHESIS”

proves

y = “Spacetime as a whole is finite in extent”

==

I’m trying to parse the logic of the following statement:

“(Don’t be offended if you are one of these people. LEARN the reasons why your belief is wrong by understanding the fallacious beliefs underpinning it.)”

But it strikes me as a “helpful etiquette hint” rather than logic.

===

I’m trying to parse the logic of the following statement:

“(Don’t be offended if you are one of these people. LEARN the reasons why your belief is wrong by understanding the fallacious beliefs underpinning it.)”

But it strikes me as a “helpful etiquette hint” rather than logic.

 

Or in mangled 2013 – “smokeweedeveryday bruh. google that shit, yeah?”

==

[smoke weed every day = “relax”. Google that shit should be obvious.]

===

- I’ll address the other part of the OP by phrasing it differently.

Is “the Big Bang hypothesis proof that Spacetime as a whole is finite in extent”?

I don’t know.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 1 = six

Leave a Reply