"Dirk McDougal" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Dirk McDougal wrote:
> > ipse dixit wrote:
> >> "Ray" > wrote in message ...
> >>> "Zakhar" > wrote in message ...
> >>>> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> >>>>
> >>>> **** off shit face.
> >>>
> >>> Hell,I must have missed this one.
> >>>
> >>> 1. Homosexuality is debase
> >>> 2. Derek Defends Homosexuality
> >>> 3. Derek is a Homosexual.
> >>>
> >>> I'm willing to bet that is a load of crap,
> >>
> >> Yes, it is. Let me help you.
> >> 1) All debased people are homosexuals
> >> 2) Derek is debased (ponens)
> >> therefore
> >> 3) Derek is a homosexual
> >
> > That is a valid argument; Affirming the Antecedent.

True, (ponens).

> It also is sound, as all three propositions are true.

The argument is unsound based on the fact
that the first premise is false.

The first premise is a conditional statement
that requires a proper relationship between
the antecedent and the consequent in
order for it to be a true premise.

This relationship which is so important
requires that the antecedent need only be
a sufficient condition for the consequent
to exist, but that the consequent must be a
necessary condition for the antecedent to
exist.

Though being debased is a sufficient condition
to be homosexual, it's logically certain that being
homosexual isn't a necessary condition for being
debased, so the argument falls to the ground on
that basis alone.

> Affirming the Antecedent and Denying the Consequent are
> valid forms; Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the
> Consequent are invalid forms. Try to understand this.

What made you believe I don't already understand
ponens and tollens?