>>77078129>How the fuck do you get A is B to mean part of A is B or A is part of B?What the actual fuck are you talking about? Do you struggle with reading comprehension or something? I didn't "go from" any of these statements to the other - it is simply true, in human language, that if A is part of B, then A is B. Nobody ever made this weird syllogism you're describing.
>You're just pulling shit straight out of your ass.No. I am speaking in plain human language which is apparently beyond your ability to wrap your head around for some asinine reason. (You) are the one pulling shit straight out of your ass by incorrectly translating this simple, plain, straightforward speech into non-equivalent statements in propositional logic which have ENTIRELY different meanings.
>And the clover analogy is fucked because the leaves of the clover are not the clover. They are part of the clover.It's not fucked at all. The leaves are parts of the clover, which means they are the clover. Fucking DUH.
>Basically the same thing wrong with that as what you're claiming of the tri-omni Gura diagram.Oh, so *nothing?* Because the Gura diagram is another real-life example of a set of TRUE statements, ALL of which demonstrate why there is no contradiction here whatsoever?
>I mean, shit, ask most christians, as it was lifted directly from their god is the father, the son and whatever the fuck a holy spirit is while neither of the later are each other argument.They would all agree with me, and they would all also be correct.
>It's utter retardation.No, anon, it is common sense. You've just managed to twist your brain into a pretzel to make something so obvious and self-evident seem utterly incomprehensible, and it's both extremely sad and extremely funny.
>Oh wait, I get it now. You're christian.And you're retarded.
