So, about logic

So this happened.
It was originally on a post where a girl said she wished guns didn't exist.
I mean, wut?

Other urls found in this thread:

phys.org/news/2015-06-tool-innate-chimpanzees-bonobos-closest.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>arguing with people in comment threads
I'm afraid you might be autistic.
Also, NYPB.

N ur so insecure about it you need Veeky Forums to soothe your bum?

If you can't figure out not to get involved in Facebook politics I can't imagine what you're doing on this board

>can't imagine what you're doing on this board
Veeky Forums is just trolling practice for /b/ using the scientific method bro

(I am assumign you are purple)

Why do you debate people on facebook?
Why do you even participate in facebook threads that are not about discussing personal events?

If the people there are people you actually know and interact in the daily then you are absolutely retarded.

Also, saying stuff like 'logic is important' makes you sound so cringy. You cannot just assume that you are logical and they aren't.

Also, you are just outright stupid. Humans did not need war to get to their current technological progress. The moments the first universities were instituted progress was bound to happen. War was just a side product of the sad fact that resource are not infinite and if you have a shitty economy but a big army then what else can you do but use that army to fix your economy.

You are absolutely autistic ffs. Get out of my board, I cannot even stand sharing a board with someone so dull.

>Humans did not need war to get to their current technological progress
bullshit
>The moments the first universities were instituted progress was bound to happen
implying universities could occur without war
>War was just a side product of the sad fact that resource are not infinite
this is true
>and if you have a shitty economy but a big army then what else can you do but use that army to fix your economy.
this follows, but it implies it is the sole purpose of war

there is no doubt in my mind that you have autism

>bullshit
Nice argument there. You are definitely logical!

>implying universities could occur without war
They kinda did. Universities were not funded by war in any way.

You seem to be thinking that result implies causation. In more explicit terms you think that:

War brings with it advances in technology ==> Advances in technology come only from war

That little arrow means imply by the way, just in case. I hope that makes your mistake clear and can reconsider your views or at least adjust them.

>this follows, but it implies it is the sole purpose of war

Yeah, the sole purpose of war is to save shitty economies from collapsing. This is very tangential to the pursuit of knowledge.

History has shown that science grows in times of peace. If you think that this is not the case then let me point to a simple example:

Every year every country gets X dollars from their tax payers. Lets say that this country only has 2 expenses: science and war.

In times of war the country would have to divert more resources to war which would imply less resources for research grants.

A real world example is the US. You really think the government would have so much money to throw away at (mostly literally useless) research if they were at war?

This would be absurd.

meh.
i'd only go get diagnosed if they promised me good medications

Her argument is based on the assumption that currently people need guns in order to protect themselves from other people with guns. Therefor if guns suddenly stopped existing then people wouldn't have a need for guns.

A retard responded by saying that people "need" war to be where they are today.

While the retard isn't wrong in that war is responsible for a lot of technological progress, they are also not properly addressing the point.

>facebook
>So, about logic
>It was originally on a post where a girl...
lol This thread man.. This user man...
The purple one is your average idiot from /pol/. The brown one is alright I guess. The blue one is your average teenage girl.

>War brings with it advances in technology ==> Advances in technology come only from war
Which is the case.
This is unprovable unless you know how to create a reality ;]

Sorry its anecdotal yo'
phys.org/news/2015-06-tool-innate-chimpanzees-bonobos-closest.html

lol, I'm not even the person you're responding to but you just made the single most noob mistake in basic logic. How embarrassing for you.

>most noob mistake in basic logic
which is?

>Which is the case.

That is demonstrably wrong. I wrote it the way I did just so that it was obvious to anyone reading this thread.

For a simple counter example: many research projects funded by governments have literally no impact for the military.

This is so true that the military (in the US and similar countries) has their own researchers that focus on military advances exclusively because they know that the next tool to keep our soldiers safe won't come from a university unless you wait a thousand years.

In propositional logic you think that

(P implies Q) implies (Q implies P)

>That is demonstrably wrong
How often do you create whole realities user?

This.

uh no.
try breaking my words down into that format and i'll point out your mistake

nvm i shouldnt have agreed with fuckwit at all
conflict =/= war no matter how similar they are

>there are people this retarded browsing Veeky Forums.

>Arguing with people in fb comments
>Talks about "logic"
>Immediately leads his "logic" with a non sequitor.

This has to be bait

If not, then you are literally a fedoralord retard

im assuming you're purple. if so, you sound like a sperg and a complete idiot. you dont even argue a point. you're just posting to have your name in there.

>non sequitor.
which is?

you should do more drugs user

>try breaking my words down into that format and i'll point out your mistake

Roughly

(War implies advances in technology) implies (advances in technology imply war)

In full text mode:

That war causes technology advancements implies that technology advancements come only from war.

It is a bit weird to explain the last part. If you think that technology implies war then you think that technology only if war, then you think that all advances in technology imply that there was an ongoing conflict going on that sparked that advance in technology.

Speaking formal math in normie language is much harder than it seems.

the point?
what are the odds this girl would be posting on the internet if mankind wasn't aggressive and warring with each other?
i would argue that the second half of that statement is conditional.
i never should have agreed with dude...
would "conflict" replacing war in the statement make it self-evident?

This is cringy as fuck and your replies in this thread let me logically assume you are both retarded and autistic

You had plenty of modern evidence to shit on anti gun normies, but you chose to type a bunch of pseudo intellectual shit about technology and war.

>would "conflict" replacing war in the statement make it self-evident?
No, because pure mathematics research isn't guided by conflict.

Doesn't that imply that pure mathematics could have originated before conflict?

Please don't pretend that you know anything about formal logic or even pretend that you are a reasonably logical person, because you are not.

I do not have autism so I will not waste my time explaining to you why; other anons here will.

>because you are not.
lol

Well it would except that modern mathematics is a fairly modern field. Arguably it didn't truly exist until sometime in the 1800s and depending on who you ask maybe even the early 1900s.

It developed entirely from realizations people had due to them having developed all sorts of abstract machinery over a long period of time.

>what are the odds this girl would be posting on the internet if mankind wasn't aggressive and warring with each other?
Are you seriously implying the interwebs could only come about as a result of war?
You'se an idjit.

>self-evident?
Clearly, you can't distinguish between your own opinions and facts.
Therefore, everyone who doesn't share your opinion just can't see the "obvious truth".
Consider therapy.

Just because it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't have.

You are literally strapping a massive correlation = causation on the entire history of mankind. If you don't see how that is fallacious and illogical then there is no hope for you.

>would "conflict" replacing war in the statement make it self-evident?

No because we can already model your problem with two logical variables in propositional logic. And as I said, it is always wrong (but not a contradiction).

(conflict implies technology) implies (technology implies conflict)

is also wrong. You cannot assume that.

But we do not live in a perfect world of mathematical logic so because your proposition is not a contradiction you could potentially argue for it but the moment someone finds a counter example that means your proposition is wrong.

I already gave you a counter example that I'm sure holds.

Not all technology comes from conflict. Some comes out of need (from a population or an individual), some comes out of genuine interest.

> abstract machinery over a long period of time
The thing is, I doubt that abstract machinery would have developed without conflict as a driving source.

>I doubt
And you may doubt it all you like but that does not make your logic infallible.

>Are you seriously implying the interwebs could only come about as a result of war?
>You'se an idjit.
Mostly mankind's need to be aggressive.

>entire history of mankind
I'm going beyond just mankind user.

>I'm going beyond just mankind user.
This makes your reasoning even more incorrect.

It's not, but I bet there's a way to properly induce my claim.

Do you not think predation is conflict, or something?

Veeky Forums arguing with an autist who thinks they're smart but can't even figure to google or read books for the origins of technological advances

/thread

Tell her those who turn their swords to plows will plow for those who don't.

Well come back when you learn how.

We'll wait.

no you won't.
that much is for certain.

Are you depressed, user?

ah shit- is this turning into a therapy session?
they're not going to prescribe me ketamine so theres no point.

Ketamine is a commonly used anesthetic. If you do enough harm to yourself that you need surgery, they might have to administer you ketamine to keep you alive.

>OP has pirate language on as settings

man... you are autistic, you are one of those obnoxious phony motherfuckers that think they are smarter than everyone else.


blue says:
>Why the fuck do you always just to argue and prove how much better your views are

She fucking slaughtered you man, go fap in a corner or something.

man i wish i had just enough social skills to convince this chick who works at a vet to get me some

Really wish edgy teens would stop posting there "OH MY GOOD DUMB NORMS I AM SUPERIOR TO THEM" facebook crap here

i may just cut out my tongue
somethings been nagging me to do it anways

> not mastering the fundamentals of logic at 12

I am talking about your autism, not your logic.
You are too god damn cringy

Kill yourself my man.

ive been seriously debating it

Oh... don't actually do it man, just don't make any more shitty Facebook threads.