Not really; an argument is valid if the conclusion is true only when the premises are valid. I believe the argument can be best constructed as follows:
If you think femboys are attractive, you’re gay
If you don’t think femboys are attractive, you’re gay
Therefore, you’re gay
Not only is this a valid argument because assuming the premises, the conclusion must be true, it’s formally valid because it follows the form
A -> B
~A -> B
Therefore B
And this argument is valid for all choices of A and B. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the conclusion being true.
My statement refers to the construction of ==> from truth tables as a logical gate:
Both (False ==> True) and (False ==> False) are True; everything can follow from false premises
(True ==> True) is True; A true premise always implies a true conclusion
(True ==> False) is False; you cannot infer a falsehood from a truth.
By counting the entries of the table, we see that if Y is True, then (X ==> Y) must always be True no matter what we substitute for X. The joke is that this means we assume foreknowledge of the reader being gay
Ah I see what you mean; you’re right. Though an argument being valid and an implication being true are different things, so I think we misunderstood each other’s meaning.
Any inference is valid if its conclusion is known to be true a priori
Not really; an argument is valid if the conclusion is true only when the premises are valid. I believe the argument can be best constructed as follows:
Therefore, you’re gay
Not only is this a valid argument because assuming the premises, the conclusion must be true, it’s formally valid because it follows the form
Therefore B
And this argument is valid for all choices of A and B. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the conclusion being true.
deleted by creator
Yeah exactly
My statement refers to the construction of ==> from truth tables as a logical gate:
By counting the entries of the table, we see that if Y is True, then (X ==> Y) must always be True no matter what we substitute for X. The joke is that this means we assume foreknowledge of the reader being gay
Ah I see what you mean; you’re right. Though an argument being valid and an implication being true are different things, so I think we misunderstood each other’s meaning.