/sci/ - Science & Math

#1 Logical Absolutes

1. Law of Identity
1. Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction
1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
2. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
3. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
1. A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
2. "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
1. Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
2. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
3. Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.

#2 Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:

1. That which exists has attributes and a nature.
1. A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
2. A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
2. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
1. It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
3. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
4. Truth is not self-contradictory.
1. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.

#4 Logical Absolutes are transcendent.

1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
1. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
1. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
1. People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.

#3 Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.

1. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
2. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
1. For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
2. But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
3. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
4. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
5. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.

#5 Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
2. If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe.
4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
1. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence. The condition of the universe don't not effect the truth that "Something cannot bring itself into existence."
2. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
3. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

#6 Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.

1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
2. Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
1. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
1. If they are conceptual by nature, then they depend on mind for their existence.
2. If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
1. What is their nature?
2. If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or not conceptual, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. But this is impossible because "conceptual or not conceptual" is an antonymic pair (pair of opposites). There are no other possible options. Either Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature or they are not.

#7 Thoughts reflect the mind

1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.

#8 Objections Answered

1. Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence.
1. In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?
2. If they are a part of natural existence (the universe) then they would cease to exist if the universe ceased.
1. This has not been proven to be true.
2. It implies that logic is a property of physical matter, but this is addressed in point 5 above.
2. Logical Absolutes simply exist.
1. This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.
3. Logical Absolutes are axioms
1. An axiom is a truth that is self evident. To say that Logical Absolutes are axioms is to beg the question and does not account for them.
4. Logical Absolutes are conventions.
1. A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds, and therefore are not human conventions; that is, of human agreements.
2. This would mean that logical absolutes were invented upon an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes are a product of human minds, which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that they transcend space and time (not dependent on space and time for their validity) and are absolute (they don't change) by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds which are finite and not absolute.
3. This would mean that if people later disagreed on what was a Logical Absolute, then the absolutes would change based on "vote".

>HURR DURR THEREFOR MY GOD IS THE CORRECT ONE

Logical Absolutes are eternal.

1. What is meant by stating they are eternal?
2. If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)? After all, logic is a process of the mind.

# Logical Absolutes are uncaused.

1. Since the nature of logic is conceptual, and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.

# Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating.

1. This means that logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.
2. It is begging the question. It just says they are because they are.

# Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess, which are not absolute and transcendent.

1. The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.

# There are different kinds of logic.

1. Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.
2. In different systems of logic, there must be undergirding, foundational principles upon which those systems are based. How are those foundational principles accounted for? The same issue applies to them as it does to Logical Absolutes in classical logic.

might i quote a line from Hamlet (Act 2, Scene 2, line 207)

"Words, words, words."

"Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying 'they would be true even if matter didn't exist' is irrelevant, because we're concerned with their existence, not their logical validity. Saying 'the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn't exist' doesn't imply that your car is transcendental (reductio ad absurdum)."

1. Why do logical absolutes need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don't need a transcendental existence doesn't make it so nor does it account for their existence. "Need" deals with desire and wants, which are irrelevant to the discussion of the nature of logical absolutes.
2. Also, why is it irrelevant to say they would be true even if matter didn't exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities, not physical ones.
3. The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid.

>This mind is called God.
Isn't god a number of other things too? Words don't mean anything when they mean everything.

"Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by the fact that logic - like language - is learned, not inbuilt (ball's in your court to demonstrate an independent existence, or problem with this)." (...continued in next objection...)

1. How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind, but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
2. How can an atheist logically claim that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? It seems quite unlikely and without proof of some sort, saying that Logical Absolutes are abstractions of (human) minds doesn't account for them.

# (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes are absolute, not because of some special quality, but because we judge them using logic. Therefore, their absoluteness doesn't arise from any special ontological quality (category error on your part)."

1. You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate that logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.
2. Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds, because human minds contradict each other and themselves where Logical Absolutes do not.
3. Where is the category mistake? The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.

# (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, anymore than the wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies that the word "lolly" is transcendental (non sequitor)."

1. Saying that they are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid and transcendent; otherwise, they wouldn't be universally used. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.
2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.

# (continued from previous objection...) "Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known "input" or "guidance" from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all (reality check)."

1. You haven't defined "material construct" or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn't help you because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven't solved the problem of their existence; since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute, but dependent upon human minds. Again, the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory.
2. As stated above how does one establish that one chemical state in the brain which leads to another state necessitates proper logical inference? Asserting it doesn't make it so and concluding that chemical reactions lead to logical inferences has not yet been established to be true, or even that it could be at all.
3. You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.

# (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, anymore than the wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies that the word "lolly" is transcendental (non sequitor)."

1. Saying that they are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid and transcendent; otherwise, they wouldn't be universally used. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.
2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.

>>1018230
>3. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)

Actually, you can still derive a lot of known theorems without assuming the law of excluded middle. It's arguably not necessary for logic.
Proofs tend to be far more complicated though.

So, not not a rock is not necessarily a rock.

# "Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human 'has.' It's not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans."

1. Saying that logic is something that everyone "has" does not explain its existence. Essentially, this is begging the question, stating that something exists because it exists.
2. The analogy of "eyes" is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.

Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?

1. "Semantics of the language." Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages?
Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at the beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.

>>1018315
8.
16.
2. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
3. If logic is the result of language, and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute.
4. Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for logic, but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.

>authoring them
Checkmate

God dammit OP, stop posting this wall of text and respond.

>>1018323
All objections are answered following this post
>>1018263

>>1018337
>All objections are answered following this post
>All objections

> LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU AND WON'T LISTEN TO YOUR OBJECTIONS COZ' I GOT THIS SHIT FIGURED OUT

>>1018323
lol, dumb atheists. you think something as complex as the explanation for god can be condensed into non-WOT form? read the summary and raise objections from there if you do not want to read the whole thing.

>>1018347
Now now, no need to be rude.
I already see the flaw in OP's argument about 3 posts in.
I won't spoil though. I want to see if /sci/ is smart enough to figure out what it is.

ok saying god created them is stupid, these absolute logical truths are true from the atheists standpoint becase they have been consistent with the universe

and - - P or not not P doesnt always equal P, if there is a grey area between P and not not P, aka not not P = P + grey area

the atheist doesnt need any more proof, however god isnt consistent with nature when he has been defined as anything, the only logical proof of god that has not been disputed relies on the fact that god is undefinable. which means that anything you say about god (atheist or theist) is also not actually about god because he is undefined. saying god did it is philisophical suicide, defining him as everything is not going to get you anywhere

Why do creationists think that it's scientists' responsibility to read every convoluted, wordy essay thrown together by a schizo, and disprove it point for point?

I'm sorry, but I'm interested in figuring out what IS true, not proving every stupid thing that comes out of the individual mouths of 6.5 billion people is untrue. We'd never accomplish anything if that was all we did.

tl;dr it was tl, so I dr

>>1018347
pic related: you

This entire argument is based on the logical axioms. Axioms are the basic assumptions made for any mathematical systems. You can choose any other set of self-consistent axioms and wind up with a completely different set of truths that are just as valid as the one's we are familiar with in the system from which they were derived.

In the first paragraph of wikipedia, it even says an axiom is a "proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision."

The axioms we frequently use seem to reflect this universe with some accuracy (hence the self-evident part) which makes good sense but they are NOT the only axioms that make sense.

Pointing to something you don't understand and calling it god doesn't mean shit you fucking retards.

>Simply saying they exist is not an answer.
Yes it is. There is no reason for something like the Logical absolutes to be "causated". Also, that answer is not a being who happened to be omnipotent, omniscient, made a bunch of lifeforms over a rock and a couple humans, flooded it, dryed it, killed it's own prophets, became a human and starred in Legion.

>>1018383
God is defined as the mind upon which the logical absolutes rely on to exist.

Human minds are an absolute, they are not different.

You fucked up pretty early on.

also since I read the first post after that:

"1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense."

I guess you never studied Quantum Physics.

only a sith deals in absolutes!

3. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.

Again, study Quantum Physics.

>>1018393
>We'd never accomplish anything if that was all we did.
I think that is their goal.

first of all, OP is a fag
secondly, your argument is a stupid wall of over complicated bullshit that you have created to try and justify the illogical existence of god
thirdly, troll harder
finally, OP is a fag

>>1018400
>God is defined as the mind upon which the logical absolutes rely on to exist.
God is defined as a lot of things that aren't that too.

Oh, btw:
1) Logical Absolutes are absolute and independent of minds.
2) God is defined as the mind upon which the logical absolutes rely on.
A contradiction has been reacted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

you have a free hour, use it wisely

also, im not saying scientists are always correct 100%, or that this guy is 100% correct, just watch it

oh and the old guy at first isnt speaking 1 hour, hes introducing his friend lawrence krauss who will speak.

>>1018434
I get it guys, God is SCIENCE

>>1018433

That's a good lecture, seen it before.

Logic doesnt stem from the mind, Logic are observations made that are consistent with the universe, aka something with all the properties of a cloud, is a cloud, it didnt stem from launguage, as launguage just gave us names to describe what we are refering to (ie a cloud) Logic was made so that we could get around semantics so that most languages could interpret it, law of identity wasnt made by god it was pronounced by aristotle which said something is, what it is, and something aint what it ain't, which is the law of non- contradiction. there is no reason at all to say that it came from god as i just said, (that is different than saying that there is no reason to say where it came from)

I will repeat, these laws come from observing the world and finding rules consistent with the universe, I will give my example again in a better term, if something has ALL the properties of x, and NO properties x doesn't have, then it is x. that is the law of contradiction.

I repeated myself because the guy in your link is an idiot, and if he doesnt understand it is because he doesn't understand logic that well.

>>1018450
> language just gives us names
are you two years old? Because the average three year-old has a firmer grasp of language than names.

>>1018416
>>1018406
Not OP, but where in quantum physics do you come across situations where you can state that A is both true and false. A wave packet is a mathematical tool for determining the state of a particle, that doesn't mean that the particle is literally a wave. As for virtual particles, there's no violation of conservation laws when one is created due to uncertainty in their energies.

>>1018433
>old guy at first

Granted that this is a cut above typical Christfag horseshit, it's still quite silly. This is nothing but a convoluted argument for deism, an attempt at a conversion that's essentially meaningless.

Also OP, logical absolutes were totally incoherent at the beginning of the universe, and likely existed in radically different forms "before" the big bang. Cause and effect? Didn't fucking exist. Time? A no show. Logical progression can make no sense in a timeless state.

>But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

...who consequently was born through an impregnated virgin to save us from sins that happened at the beginning of creation by getting himself killed again?

Troll harder

pic related (it's sage)

"God" is just a misindentified alien. watch ancient aliens, they make compelling arguments.

>>1018450
Actually, the construct or system of logic as we know it stems from the human mind.
>these laws come from OBSERVING the world and finding rules consistent with the universe

The logical absolutes, however, do not. A would still be A in a universe with no human minds, hence the OP saying that they have to come from a perfect absolute mind. The flaw in OP's argument is defining the logical absolutes as necessarily "conceptual".

OP, if you're still here, would you mind addressing that? Why do the logical absolutes need to be conceptual?

>>1018490
If the logical absolutes are neither material or conceptual reality, what kind of reality are they?

Im sick of replying to everything wrong with your thread op,

alot of it is misleading and worded improperly but set out to make it sound like you have a sound arguement

but one thing i am sick of and i will point out is you havent defined logic, you keep refering it too a process in the brain or of thought, and then saying it is not, your redifining (in the way you word your references in the arguement) comes to a contradiction, and one thing you learn about a contradiction is that you can prove anything from a contradiction, if you laid out your arguement in a more formal way and anyone who has actually done logic will know that the arguement you have posted here is subtle yet flawed and weak, it is about as perfect as your god you are trying to transcend towards (i.e a load of crap)

>>1018490
sorry i should have gone into more detail. but you were right to point that out in my post

I was refering to the logicle absolutes not the system we use to define logic in our heads.

in more detail, the logical absolutes are what they are because they need no premiss to exist, they are kinda self provable by themselves/from one another.

hence why we can use our brains to discover them and develop a system to understand it, and why they can be observed in the universe. op keeps refering to them as 1 and then the other. then he says that it can only be 1. he forms a contradiction and then says therefore god as that seems to be the answer to everything that we are too lazy to understand these days

>>1018395

I will secound this post, and im sure the 30 or so people in my logic class tomorow would also secound this post if they were here

"It is not correct to say that the axioms of field theory are 'propositions that are regarded as true without proof.' Rather, the field axioms are a set of constraints."

Wikipedia destroyed your argument, OP.

>>1018460
yo dickweed, i didnt say that was the only thing that launguage gives us, i was trying to illistrate that launguage helps us identify stuff between people if thats all you are gonna say in a post you may as well gtfo /sci/ and head back to /b/

>>1018610

>secounds

>this kind of guy should be taking sociology, not logic.

>>1018619
Statements are somewhat equivalent.

>>1018610
SOMEONE LIKES MAH POST

>>1018632
>thread about logic
>someone says "somewhat equivalent"
gtfo

>>1018632
No, there's a distinction to be made. Axioms are a set of constraints that are assumed (not necessarily true or false). Mathematicians should be well aware of their underlying assumptions.

>>1018653
> axioms are assumed
Axioms are rules. We don't assume rules, we state them. Suppose mathematics is like a game. Say, like chess. Axioms are like the rules of chess. A valid board is a board that can be reached by following the rules.

Any time you feel the need to say something about math, please reflect on this metaphor.

This isn't a new argument. It sounds a lot like the ontological argument, which has been better stated and refuted elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

>>1018691
They are rules. They are also being assumed to be true when being used.
If a proposition follows from an axiom, the axiom must first be considered true within that system.

lrn2axiom

>>>1018761

>>1018691
Axioms are assumed rules.

> Logical absolutes exist.

No they don't.

Your argument fails on its first premise. For an argument to be valid, all its links must be valid and since your argument breaks on the first link, it can be easily tossed aside and ignored. You need to reopen that fuckin' logic book again, pumpkin.

the premises are unacceptable and there are many non-sequiturs in there

seriously, lrn2logic

>>1018434
Hey!

If you're going to do my job for me, at LEAST shout 'OBJECTION!' next time!

THANK YOU.