Occam's Razor mathematically disproves MGTOW and Redpillers.

B.T.N.O.M.A

B.T.N.O.M.A

Silver
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Posts
635
Reputation
635
“What is the contrapositive of a Universal Truth?” Whilst, the first implication is true, and the 2nd implication is false. The entire sum of both implications is thus, true. The contrapositive of 1 + 1 = 3 would be “Not” 1 + 1 = 3, or alternatively, 1 +1 =/= 3, which is true. “(Not) Universal Truth. Or Universal False.” Here are another of these so called “Universal Truths” (1+1=2
  1. 4 > 3
  2. 3 ≤ 4


    5 = 6
  3. 1/2 ∈ N
  4. N ⊆ Looks good so far, right? Then consider these following sentences.
  5. √ 2 ∈ Q =⇒ √2 ∈ Z.
  6. 3 > 4 =⇒ sin(0) = 1.
  7. 3 > 4 =⇒ 3 = 4.
    Upon closer inspection, one may think that these sentences are false, hence a “Universal False“. To re-iterate my first point and the main point of the subject matter. They illustrate the fact that: if the assumption of an implication is false, then the implication is true (regardless of whether the conclusion is true or false). i.e. 1 + 1 = 3 or the moon is made out of blue cheese. i.e. 1 + 1 = 3 or I am MGTOW or redpilled therefore I am really going my own way or I am really slaying pussy.




 
  • Hmm...
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 17791, Chintuck22 and SubhumanCurrycel
“What is the contrapositive of a Universal Truth?” Whilst, the first implication is true, and the 2nd implication is false. The entire sum of both implications is thus, true. The contrapositive of 1 + 1 = 3 would be “Not” 1 + 1 = 3, or alternatively, 1 +1 =/= 3, which is true. “(Not) Universal Truth. Or Universal False.” Here are another of these so called “Universal Truths” (1+1=2
  1. 4 > 3
  2. 3 ≤ 4


    5 = 6
  3. 1/2 ∈ N
  4. N ⊆ Looks good so far, right? Then consider these following sentences.
  5. √ 2 ∈ Q =⇒ √2 ∈ Z.
  6. 3 > 4 =⇒ sin(0) = 1.
  7. 3 > 4 =⇒ 3 = 4.
    Upon closer inspection, one may think that these sentences are false, hence a “Universal False“. To re-iterate my first point and the main point of the subject matter. They illustrate the fact that: if the assumption of an implication is false, then the implication is true (regardless of whether the conclusion is true or false). i.e. 1 + 1 = 3 or the moon is made out of blue cheese. i.e. 1 + 1 = 3 or I am MGTOW or redpilled therefore I am really going my own way or I am really slaying pussy.



bump
 
Smaht boy
 
  • Love it
Reactions: B.T.N.O.M.A
Why the math
 
“What is the contrapositive of a Universal Truth?” Whilst, the first implication is true, and the 2nd implication is false. The entire sum of both implications is thus, true. The contrapositive of 1 + 1 = 3 would be “Not” 1 + 1 = 3, or alternatively, 1 +1 =/= 3, which is true. “(Not) Universal Truth. Or Universal False.” Here are another of these so called “Universal Truths” (1+1=2
  1. 4 > 3
  2. 3 ≤ 4


    5 = 6
  3. 1/2 ∈ N
  4. N ⊆ Looks good so far, right? Then consider these following sentences.
  5. √ 2 ∈ Q =⇒ √2 ∈ Z.
  6. 3 > 4 =⇒ sin(0) = 1.
  7. 3 > 4 =⇒ 3 = 4.
    Upon closer inspection, one may think that these sentences are false, hence a “Universal False“. To re-iterate my first point and the main point of the subject matter. They illustrate the fact that: if the assumption of an implication is false, then the implication is true (regardless of whether the conclusion is true or false). i.e. 1 + 1 = 3 or the moon is made out of blue cheese. i.e. 1 + 1 = 3 or I am MGTOW or redpilled therefore I am really going my own way or I am really slaying pussy.
7e7.png
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 17791, incel194012940 and Deleted member 5892
Why the math
Because mgtow are redpillers are generally soycucks and won't accept word of mouth so I will refute them with what they know best: "maths" and "logic"
 
  • JFL
Reactions: incel194012940
Because mgtow are redpillers are generally soycucks and won't accept word of mouth so I will refute them with what they know best: "maths" and "logic"
Theh don't use math .
 
if i liked math i'd be an engineer. dn rd
 
  • +1
Reactions: hebbewem
They are usually obsessed with subjects which have futurist and transhumanist themes to them (like maths, science etc)
Theh don't use math .
 
  • JFL
Reactions: incel194012940
They are usually obsessed with subjects which have futurist and transhumanist themes to them (like maths, science etc)
They aren't even if tvey were they still dont like doing math.

Btw i like space ships but i dont like doing the math
 
so these soycucks are intellectually nothing but glued to eye candy with no frontal lobes? youre telling me thats what their persona is all about?
They aren't even if tvey were they still dont like doing math.

Btw i like space ships but i dont like doing the math
 
  • +1
Reactions: incel194012940
so these soycucks are intellectually nothing but glued to eye candy with no frontal lobes? youre telling me thats what their persona is all about?
Yeah i would assume that
 
so these soycucks are intellectually nothing but glued to eye candy with no frontal lobes? youre telling me thats what their persona is all about?
this is equivalent of showing scientific research to a science believer
 
Occam's anal fisting:Comfy:
 
  • Woah
Reactions: B.T.N.O.M.A

Similar threads

lestoa
Replies
22
Views
3K
kanderior
kanderior
BucketCrab
Replies
53
Views
3K
Redwhiteandbluepill
R
Baban
Replies
21
Views
2K
johnny4612
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top