Oh wow, you had me geeking out there for a minute. In college I failed finite math twice. Finally found out that I could get my last math credit by taking Philosophy Logic. So I jumped on it, I hate numbers. Words are my friends. I aced that class and tutored half of it. That must be a left brain/right brain thing.
lol I can't do numbers either and I was able to take some intro to computers class instead of a math class in college and that counted as a math credit.
Your analysis of the logical rules is incorrect. I'll define it formally for you:
A => Committed treason
B => Protected from arrest
If: A -> !B
Then: B -> !A
This is the textbook definition of the logical contrapositive. You can absolute conjecture that it's impossible to know A prior to a trial, therefore the conclusion might be wrong, but that's not a "converse error." My application of the rule is correct.
The converse error refers to an incorrect application of a statement's converse, in which a proof states that A -> B, therefore B -> A. That's patently wrong, and also not what I did.
Did I interpret the constitution incorrectly? The post seems to indicate that Congress is using an extended session to protect themselves from arrest. If treason is not covered under types of issues protected from arrest, then it would not make sense that they would extend the session to protect themselves from arrest for treason.
I think it comes down to that, and also to whether or not the arrest would be legal. If we're willing to commit crimes to arrest criminals, then our laws mean nothing.
(We do have problems with unequal applications of justice, so there's a lot more to talk about on that topic.)
If they committed treason, then they wouldn't be protected from arrest, so if they're protected from arrest then they did not commit treason.
Edit (for the haters and the losers): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
Bonus points to any reader who recognized this as an example of "converse error" in logic.
Determination of whether someone committed treason occurs only after a TRIAL—not after a bureaucratic decision to refrain from arresting someone.
Oh wow, you had me geeking out there for a minute. In college I failed finite math twice. Finally found out that I could get my last math credit by taking Philosophy Logic. So I jumped on it, I hate numbers. Words are my friends. I aced that class and tutored half of it. That must be a left brain/right brain thing.
lol I can't do numbers either and I was able to take some intro to computers class instead of a math class in college and that counted as a math credit.
Same here, fren! Words are my friends. Math, more a frenemy. I had to take college calculus twice. That was painful!
name checks out
Like trying to prove a negative.
I believe the reason for the arrest is on the arrest warrant. The warrant couldn't state something from which they are protected.
Eventually guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
Your analysis of the logical rules is incorrect. I'll define it formally for you:
A => Committed treason
B => Protected from arrest
If: A -> !B
Then: B -> !A
This is the textbook definition of the logical contrapositive. You can absolute conjecture that it's impossible to know A prior to a trial, therefore the conclusion might be wrong, but that's not a "converse error." My application of the rule is correct.
The converse error refers to an incorrect application of a statement's converse, in which a proof states that A -> B, therefore B -> A. That's patently wrong, and also not what I did.
Thank you for the clearing that one up. So let the arrests begin
Arrests can't happen, they're still in session.
Arrests can happen. Even in session. They can be arrested for treason.
We can only hope.
(cue Sesame Street music...) This one thing is not like the other....
Did I interpret the constitution incorrectly? The post seems to indicate that Congress is using an extended session to protect themselves from arrest. If treason is not covered under types of issues protected from arrest, then it would not make sense that they would extend the session to protect themselves from arrest for treason.
It all comes down to who is willing to arrest them?
I think it comes down to that, and also to whether or not the arrest would be legal. If we're willing to commit crimes to arrest criminals, then our laws mean nothing.
(We do have problems with unequal applications of justice, so there's a lot more to talk about on that topic.)