this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
443 points (99.6% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2858 readers
698 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Bearistotle isnt just wrong, he's failed the simplest of syllogisms; the kind that people dont need context to parse.
Come on, it's a bear. It's already fairly impressive that it manages to speak that well.
I think there's a tiny flaw in logic there though, that's true if ONLY all men are inherently political. As it stands you have wiggle room for other beings to be political without being men.
Syllogisms ignore whether each premise is factually true. It focuses on whether it is internally coherent.
If I said:
It would be a valid syllogism (structurally valid). This would mean the premises must be evaluated.
You can test yourself on syllogisms here.
You'll inherently understand what I'm saying after a few rounds.
Your example is incorrect.
The first two do not make the third.
You can have:
To fix this, reverse the first statement.
Any portion of d that intersects with p (some p is d) must also be c (since all p is in c). Hence some c, but not all c, is in the portion of p that intersects with d (some c is d).
Oops. I fucked up lol. I changed it with your edit :p
Mental note: don't do syllogisms at 1am.
That is not the correct form of a syllogism. The second premise should be "Some C are A" leading to the conclusion "Some C are B". With the structure you provided, it is easy to produce invalid conclusions from true premises:
Whereas a correctly structured syllogism might be:
I'm not saying the syllogism is correct, I'm illustrating how Bearistotle is wrong.