All arguments are built from statements but a statement without reasoning is not an argument. You have to actually explain why. Saying "my statement is self-proving" is circular reasoning. You're just saying that anyone who disagrees is proof of them secretly being MIGA. That's the definition of a Kafka trap.
"If A then B; else C" isn't a deductive argument unless B actually follows from A in a logical way, and unless C is a real alternative, not just a fallback where you say "see, you disagreed, so that proves me right."
In your case:
- A = someone is MIGA rather than MAGA
- B = they hate Tucker but support Trump
- C = they get mad when you call them MIGA, which you say proves they’re MIGA
The problem is, you never explain why hating Tucker while supporting Trump automatically means someone is MIGA. You just say it like it’s self-evident, but there's no reasoning behind it.
Then, when someone pushes back, you act like that’s C, and say it confirms your point. That’s not a legit "else" condition. That’s a trap where no matter what anyone says, you claim you're right.
In real logic, B has to come from A in a way that makes sense, and C has to stand on its own. What you wrote isn't logic, it's circular bullshit dressed up to look like an argument.
You're playing word games to mask that you made a claim, can't back it up with logic because you were never trained on formal logic and the only logic you know about is programming logic where you provide your own definitions, and now you're thrashing because someone called you on it.
It's hilarious to see people like you pretend to understand formal logic when your arguments wouldn't be accepted in a 4th grade Gemara class because it doesn't meet expectations.
