• BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 days ago

          Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 days ago

            If it’s not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?

            • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 day ago

              My position was that you might actually learn something if you read the article, but I think you’ve provided sufficient evidence that I was wrong.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 hours ago

                I can tell you’re really proud of these replies, but I’m afraid they don’t actually make sense.

                You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn’t happen. However, “not P” doesn’t actually prove anything about the implication.

                Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!

                • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  19 hours ago

                  The syllogism P (you read something) then Q (you learn something) presumes a) you can process information contained within the written word and b) you have the capability of learning. While not conclusively falsified by these exchange, a postpostivist interpretation suggests that the preponderance of the evidence rests with the counterfactual. No need for P to actually take place. Thanks for playing, best of luck in your future endeavors.