Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

See this is why I don't agree with the arguments as used. They're the arguments of a firebrand or a demagogue---not a logician.

I find that statement ironic, given the fact that your own argument has a glaring logical fallacy in it:

1. The situation is called misogynist---aka evil.

2. The situation is called childish.

So misogynistic is childish now? Or is it the reverse: are children misogynistic then grow out of it?

1. My computer is a laptop.

2. My computer has 4 USB ports.

So all laptops have 4 USB ports? Or is it the reverse: are all computers with 4 USB ports called laptops?

I hope this serves to illustrate the point that "P and Q" is not the same as "P implies Q" nor "Q implies P".



In a P and Q situation, the appopriate thing to do is what I did: ask for precision. Does P imply Q? Does Q imply P? What is the relationship between the two.

This is especially relevant when P and Q have diverging connotations. Usually one would expect not to say something is both misogynistic and childish. The meanings are not completely orthogonal.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: