a= “birds are dinos”

b= “dinos are reptiles”

c= “birds are reptiles”

Structure: If a then b, therefore c

a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be “because birds are reptiles”)

You’ve basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles

I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.

Eugenics is not inherently bad, it’s just frequently used as an excuse to do really evil shit.

It’s not just the psycho assholes looking for people to hammer. It’s hard to want to engage with voice chat when the general public has no fucking concept of mic discipline. Nobody wants to hear the conversations happening around you. They don’t want to hear you eating. They certainly don’t want to hear your background music. Use push to talk.

A wealthy man from Soth Africa has weird views on eugenics? I’m shocked!

So I took a browse through your comment history out of idle curiosity. You’re an “um actually” concern troll that just looks for things to argue about. It’s pretty obvious you don’t actually care. Maybe you shouldn’t feel satisfaction with being a contrarian assbag for entertainment.

Now it’s a Z:\bra

I’m pretty sure cow is the species common name and bull/heffer are the sex variant terms.

You know, like how a rooster and a hen are both still chickens?

The fuckers already raised the price to “compete with inflation”. I might have been able to accept that by itself, but with this shit added in? It really reveals their intent.

The worst part of it is that those same assholes that insisted on micro transactions will blame every other aspect of the game before admitting that it did poorly on release because of the blatant money grabbing.

None of this has a point. We’re talking over a shitpost rant about common use of math symbols. Even the conclusion boils down to it being a context dependent matter of preference. I’m just disagreeing that the original question as posed should be interpreted with weak juxtaposition.

My argument is specifically that using no separation shows intent for which way to interpret and should not default to weak juxtaposition.

Choosing not to use (6/2)(1+2) implies to me to use the only other interpretation.

There’s also the difference between 6/2(1+2) and 6/2*(1+2). I think the post has a point for the latter, but not the former.

Honestly, I do disagree that the question is ambiguous. The lack of parenthetical separation is itself a choice that informs order of operations. If the answer was meant to be 9, then the 6/2 would be isolated in parenthesis.

Lol, right? It would be funny if it weren’t so depressingly common a response.

“Something bad is happening to men”

“I think we should focus on how that affects women.”

Recreational weed was on the same ballot and both passed. Ohio actually managed to do two things right, which is a pleasant change of pace.

Well RIP your sanity and free time. You’re going to wake up a few weeks from now after having nightmares about unsaturated belts.

I’d be worried that this will be used as a screen to kill “undesirables” without scrutiny.

Lol, this is also wrong. Replace ape with primate and you’ve got something more accurate. If you actually care about maintaining phyletic groups then apes ( and thus humans) are old world monkeys.

I use the same name for most things out of habit, but I wouldn’t be too put out if it is taken when signing up for something new.