Their statement affirms: "if it makes my dick hard, then it's a woman" whereas the assumption being made here is "if it's a woman, then it makes my dick hard". This is the converse of the original statement, and doesn't carry the same logical truth as the original.
It should be noted that the inverse ("if it doesn't make my dick hard, then it isn't a woman") also doesn't, but the contrapositive ("if it's not a woman, it doesn't make my dick hard") does!
Are you gonna teach proofs by induction next week?
Hopefully, I’m taking notes
That's a lot of words to say "sufficient, but not necessary. "
By this logic, the math problem the teacher called me up to the board to solve in 10th grade when I had a random boner was also a woman.
God damn gusts of wind women
The scalene triangle
Ah yes, the most erotic of all triangles
viagra and Brazilian wandering spider venom is a woman
Diogenes walking in with a bottle of Viagra and a hard on: "Behold, a woman!"
Kind of function rebel / form rebel I think
Don't let him near the pets 😰
*women
He nevr said pets make his dick hard?
He never said the opposite (also those are women by his definition so he couldn't have said that, anyway)
Is your mother a woman
This is an example of Affirming the Consequent, also known as the Converse Error
Their statement affirms: "if it makes my dick hard, then it's a woman" whereas the assumption being made here is "if it's a woman, then it makes my dick hard". This is the converse of the original statement, and doesn't carry the same logical truth as the original.
It should be noted that the inverse ("if it doesn't make my dick hard, then it isn't a woman") also doesn't, but the contrapositive ("if it's not a woman, it doesn't make my dick hard") does!
Are you gonna teach proofs by induction next week?
Hopefully, I’m taking notes
That's a lot of words to say "sufficient, but not necessary. "