
Your local Barnes and Noble may have it, but why not order it online? Do you not have an address?

Looks like Chief Justice Roberts used precisely my rationale for upholding the individual mandate. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28715.aspx

Seraiah, The problem with your original argument is not grammar or ambiguity. It's just flat out false  end of story. You can admit that you made a mistake, or continue to insist that "it was obvious", and make yourself look even more foolish.

This is precisely what I said earlier. Suppose A, B, and C are statements, or in logic terms, atomic sentences => means only if <= means if <=> means if and only if ((A => B) and (B => C)) => (A => C) is always true in all possible combinations of truth values of A, B, and C. We call such propositions tautologies. Tautologies

Seraiah, Your original argument wasn't blatantly obvious. It had nothing to do with grammar; it was completely false according to the rules of logic. Posters have pointed numerous examples why it isn't true. If you still don't understand why, go back reread what you posted. I'm under the impression that you still don't understand

Gotlucky, an equals sign is most definitely not "if and only if". The latter is a logical connective used with propositions. "Is" means equal, and to say that "A is B" or "A is equal to B" means that A and B are objects, not propositions.

Oh and the fuck am I supposed to know what you "meant" when you put forth a logically invalid argument?

Seriah, what I posted is the exact same, false argument you posted earlier. Look at it carefully.

I can't believe the astonishing stupidity of some of the posters here. I mean "A is C B is C Therefore A is B" sounds like a valid argument to some of you dimwits? Jesus Christ.
