Fidget Spinners: A Philosophical Discussion

Two of the following propositions taken together MUST negate the third:
1) Autism is not normal
2) Fidget spinners are autistic
3) Fidget spinners are normal

If 1) & 2), then ~3)
If 2) & 3), then ~1)
If 1) & 3), then ~2)

PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

Insane

Propositions 2 and 3 are false. Fidget spinners are normie tier but autists love it

>If 1) & 3), then ~2)
this is wrong. having hair is also normal and is not precluded by the abnormality of autistism. if fidget spinners are normal, and autism is not normal, abnormals can still have normal traits/possessions
the rest stand, but you'd need a statement about normal for all of them to stand

what the fuck is it with these things and why in the fuck are they popular

i got some dude at a gas station trying to shill me these whippy zippy doo-daps every frickin day

>normalcy is based on majority rule
>more and more people are becoming autistic
>autism is normal

Sure, I'll prove you wrong.
Why are fidget spinners autistic? What attributes do fidget spinners in and of themselves possess that are also present in autism? You can't just take one class of Critical Thinking and think you know how to construct a valid and sound argument by using vague definitions.

...

Nah this isn't serious. I was mainly riffing off of the style of Diodorus Cronus' "Master Argument"

...

uhh, lets try this.

Defining Terms. "Autism = A" "Normal = B" "Not Normal = ¬B" "Fidget Spinner = F"

1.) A = ¬ B
2.) F = A
3.) F = B

Those are our three premises. I'm going to assume that any two premises which do not lead to a contradiction indicate your thread doesn't work.

1.) A = ¬ B
2.) F = A

This does not lead to a contradiction. 'Autism is not normal, fidget spinners are autistic'.


1.) A = ¬B
3.)F = B

This also does not lead to a contradiction. 'Autism is not normal, fidget spinners are normal.'


2.) F = A
3.) F = B

This is where we have the issue. At start, this is not a contradiction. We can infer F=A=B without a problem. But if you force us to take all three premises, you say

A = ¬B
F = A
F = B

and from that it follows

F = A, F = B, F= ¬B and therefore ⊥

In English - "Autism is not normal. Fidget spinners are autistic. Fidget spinners are normal.', and we contradict on fidget spinners being simultaneously normal and not normal.

To simplify for lazy anons, your challenge boils down to

"F, B, ¬B", where the challenged must have all three co-existing without contradiction, which is impossible.

So user has his proof.

the only autism I see in this thread is the frail attempt at analytic philosophy

worrying about whether or not they are autistic is autistic user. just do what you wanna do. soo many people re afraid of what others think, it's hilarious

obviously, that dude was triggered b/c he is autistic.

Bravo! Someone was paying attention in symbolic logic class!

/thread

>he mistakes normal for what most humans actually are

Normality is just people adhering to Grice's 5 Maxims. As the internet is quickly proving, behind closed doors nobody is normal.

Thank you kindly user

>triggered
You're projecting a bit too hard there pal

>analytic philosophy
The term you are looking for is "formal logic".

What on earth is a fidget spinner. Fucking Americans I swear.

Okay. 1) and 3) are compatible, even if they're 2) the fidget spinners themselves could still be seen/acccepted as normal.

1) A steady temperature of 15*c is not normal
2) My fridge has that temp
3) Fridges are not normal
(someone else can make this better, I can't be fucked, you literally just have to tweak the conditions of X not being normal to be something that's not normally occuring. i.e. abnormal and then pick 2) as something that mostly everyone has, i.e. is seen as normal regardless of the abnormal condition, you get the point.

i've begun seeing them in norway

>Fidget Spinners
Oh, so that's what those are called. I saw a bunch of kids on the bus spinning them.

I guess they're the yo-yo's of this generation.