>>7720891false equivalency.
>accusing people of trying to make a logical narrative and not seeing syntax>uses logical narrative biased in his favor to prove his point>unless x had/nt y, zmakes just as much sense as
>if x had/nt y, zUnless the load was secured, it would have fallen.
This isn't really a natural way to say things, but there is nothing inherently wrong about it. It excludes other ways of doing things, which "if" doesn't. Imagine this situation:
Worker A: Why did the crate fall?
Worker B: Unless the grip was locked, it would have fallen.
In an "if" alternative:
Worker A: Why did the crate fall?
Worker B: If the grip was locked, the crate wouldn't have fallen.
While both of these are correct, the "if" alternative doesn't imply that the grip was the only way of securing the load, while the "unless" statement does.
