Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Their statement affirms: “if it makes my dick hard, then it’s a woman” whereas the assumption being made here is “if it’s a woman, then it makes my dick hard”. This is the converse of the original statement, and doesn’t carry the same logical truth as the original.
It should be noted that the inverse (“if it doesn’t make my dick hard, then it isn’t a woman”) also doesn’t, but the contrapositive (“if it’s not a woman, it doesn’t make my dick hard”) does!
This is an example of Affirming the Consequent, also known as the Converse Error
Their statement affirms: “if it makes my dick hard, then it’s a woman” whereas the assumption being made here is “if it’s a woman, then it makes my dick hard”. This is the converse of the original statement, and doesn’t carry the same logical truth as the original.
It should be noted that the inverse (“if it doesn’t make my dick hard, then it isn’t a woman”) also doesn’t, but the contrapositive (“if it’s not a woman, it doesn’t make my dick hard”) does!
Are you gonna teach proofs by induction next week?
Hopefully, I’m taking notes
That’s a lot of words to say "sufficient, but not necessary. "