I’m aware that you were using it to mean “coward.”

What I’m asking is why you think a slang-term for vaginas or vulvas is an appropriate way to to single out cowardice for criticism. Is being associated with women’s sex organs supposed to imply cowardice? If so, why?

cabrutus: “… denials of conditionals don’t mean what people think they mean”

Or maybe conditionals don’t mean what logicians in the early 20th century drilled us to think they mean.

The question is who is to be the master, that’s all.

Well, what (~A -> ~P) -> G says is: “God exists if: it’s the case that my prayers aren’t answered (by God) only if I don’t pray.” But that does intuitively imply that God exists: prayers can only be answered (the way we’re using that term) if God does in fact exist.

So I don’t see the problem at this point.

Of course, there is a problem with the idea that truth-functional material implication expresses the same thing as an English “if-then” or “only if” phrase.

“Way to make a fool of yourself. You’re good at that, anonymous pussy.”

Why are you comparing the anonymous poster to a vagina?

Is that supposed to be an insult?

“Way to make a fool of yourself. You’re good at that, anonymous pussy.”

Why are you comparing the anonymous poster to a vagina?

Is that supposed to be an insult?