True. The form is the same.Roy, you both did more than just use A and B. What you wrote in #1834 is absolutely no different than saying:
B implies A.
A, therefore B.
Transposing the two makes no difference...
No, Steven, that is a lie. You are LYING AGAIN. That is indisputably NOT what hb wrote.which is exactly what hb wrote, in shorter form:
That is not a "shorter form" of affirming the consequent, it is an entirely different thing -- an ordinary entailment premise -- and it is NOT FALLACIOUS. You are either a total logical ignoramus or a lying sack of $#!+, and I certainly do not rule out both.A, therefore B., only he put it in shorter form, leaving out the "If A, then B" part.
That is not a "qualifier." It is the major premise. Without it, there is no fallacy. You are just telling stupid, outrageous lies. As usual.You just transposed A and B, and added the qualifier at the top.
No, I was absolutely and indisputably correct as a matter of objective fact, as usual, and you are just spewing absurd and outrageous lies.But even that was incorrect,
Yes, in fact it is. That is the same logical form as, "If A then B." You know nothing about logic, and are lying about what I plainly wrote, as usual.as it's not "A implies B".
That is your idiotic lie.That's your goofy-loose interpretation,
That is not a "shortest form" of affirming the consequent. It is a completely different form: an ordinary entailment premise. There is no inference, and therefore no fallacy. Every logician in the world will tell you that you are a total ignoramus and are telling stupid, sickening lies about what I plainly wrote.which leaves out the even longer, but more accurate form: "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true." Or, in shortest form: "B. Therefore A."
Which proved him wrong.He provided a link to his source,
And indisputably proves him wrong.which clearly states it properly, and puts his reference in context.
You mean other than hb's form being totally different from the real form?Other than that, where is the substantive difference?
hb was objectively wrong. But rather than just admit it and move on, he is trying to brazen it out, pretending he knows some logic when he clearly knows none and presuming to lecture his moral and intellectual superior when he has indisputably been demolished and humiliated.You're acting like a child playground nerd who thinks he has a bona fide "GOTCHA!" on a stupid technicality that is easily resolved with an iota of critical thought when read in context.
I don't like lying ignorami presuming to lecture me on subjects of which they are self-evidently hilariously ignorant.But you don't like paying attention to context or the spirit of intent when it's not yours, do you?