>>16556172
I don't know the name of it, but he assumed if not A results in not B, then A results B. He wasn't getting dessert either way, so the paren't wasn't lying.

>>16556172
You must be 18+ to post here
Don't come to this board just because you got refused a dessert, kid

>>16556172
Denying the antecedent.

What do I win?

>>16556175
Every time I post this some people symbolize the antecedent in the statement as "not A", and the consequent as "not B". I don't know why people do this. To me it only convolutes things. An atomic sentence can have a negation such as "not", "doesn't", "won't", "isn't" etc in it, that doesn't mean you need to split the negation from the rest of the atomic sentence in your symbolization. Why do that? The statement says
>if (you don't eat your vegetables), then (you won't get any dessert)
Wouldn't it be much simpler, more natural and straightforward to symbolize this as
>if A, then B
rather than
>if not A, then not B
?

>>16556172
The child is clearly adopted.
>>16556192
This. 100% this.

>>16556192
Because I'm not a logician and I don't know or care what the proper notation is.

>>16556172
He didn't commit any fallacies. He recognized the duplicitous lie his parents stated.
https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html

>>16556237
>I'm not a logician
Neither am I, or any of the people who I have seen do this when I've posted this topic before, I still don't get why you do this. One guy claimed he thought the structure in this particular case represented the natural reasoning or whatever, I don't get that.

>>16556254
>Don't eat vegetables
>Don't get dessert
>Eat vegetables
>Get dessert
It's pretty obvious that the first two are negations of the second two. You could refer to the first two as A and B if you wanted, but then you'd have refer to the second two as not A and not B, which is the opposite of how they're presented in natural language. I don't see why you're autistically screeching about this. My notation expresses the idea in an intelligable way, and that's all that matters.

>>16556192
Is this not how everyone sees this?

>>16556271
>the opposite of how they're presented in natural language
no, it's just a symbolization
>My notation expresses the idea in an intelligable way
No, because you didn't name the actual fallacy and present the structure. Show me an intelligible way that translates to denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. One other guy got it structured into affirming the consequent in a way that was very convoluted, and yet he thought it was more natural than my very straightforward negating of both sides which makes it denying the antecedent.
if P, then Q
not P
therefore not Q
if (you don't eat your vegetables), then (you won't get any dessert)
(did eat my vegetables)
therefore (should get dessert)

The way you presented it is
if not (you eat your vegetables), then not(you will get dessert)
if not A, then not B

Show me how you proceed with that to denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent without going back to A=not A and B=not B.

>>16556278
What is "this"? Be more specific.

>>16556284
If P, then Q, where P = (not A); Q = (not B) as standard for statements like the OP.

>>16556286
Don't know what you're saying. Clearly me and the other guy structured/symbolized it differently, so already your point is refuted, no, "this" is not how everyone sees "this", regardless of what you meant by either "this", which remains unclear.

>>16556291
lmao ok midwit

>>16556314
Why would you symbolize it TWICE? And learn to be more explicit in your writing.

parent:
"If not V, then not D."

contrapositive(parent):
"If D, then V."

converse(contrapositive(parent)):
"If V, then D."

>>16556172
>You give your child a bowl of vegetables
child abuse

>>16558695
You didn't answer the question which fallacy it is.

>>16556175
Bullshit! I don’t care about your fancy pants logical technicalities, the parent jewed their kid via loopholes.

>>16558725
"In logic and mathematics, the converse of a categorical or implicational statement is the result of reversing its two constituent statements. For the implication P Q, the converse is Q P. [T]he truth of the converse is generally independent from that of the original statement."

>>16558743
Still not answering. It's denying the antecedent, but I don't know why you symbolized it "if not V, then not D", what's the point? >>16556192

>>16556172
If the parent didn't clarify what he meant, he has no one else to blame for having to deal with the tantrum.

>>16556172
Giving children vegetables especially the store bought ones is literally children abuse, you're poisoning them on gunpoint.

Ever wonder why children don't want to eat vegeshit on their own? That's because humans automatically know they are bad and toxic. I have never seen a child not wanting steak or milk.

>>16558719
>>16558753
>>16558761
off-topic

>>16558748

The fallacy is reversing the arrow.

In other words, the fallacy is exchanging, or swapping, the antecedent and the consequent.

Or the fallacy is taking the converse.

>>16558732
what would you call that fallacy

>>16558766
That's not a name of a fallacy, again the fallacy is "denying the antecedent", google it.

>>16558771

Well if you already know, then why did you even ask?

Plus why should I use Google?
I like using Yandex!

>>16556172
assuming the converse

if you dont go to university you wont get a good job
graduates university in a mountain of debt, cant get any job as no openings and overqualified for the already immigrant overflown low skill labour

>>16556172
that converse is trube

>>16558823
>>16559253
Show how it is assuming the converse, aka affirming the consequent, rather than denying the antecedent.

>>16556192
The fact that you think memorising "logical fallacies" is useful in any way when the poster correctly answered the question shows that you are a low IQ rote memorisation nigger monkey

>>16559279
Learn basic logic

>>16558823
>>16559253
No. The converse of
>If you don't eat your vegetables, you won't get any dessert.
is
>If you don't get any dessert, you didn't eat your vegetables.

The inverse of
>If you don't eat your vegetables, you won't get any dessert.
Is
>If you eat your vegetables, you will get dessert.

>>16558766
No. It's not. It's negating both antecedent and consequent. >>16559301

>>16558732
This.
My mother did this thing to me often, and always taunted "don't be a freier!".

>>16559279
He didn't name any fallacies in that post, wtf are you talking about?

>>16559305
>It's negating both antecedent and consequent.
That's what I was thinking.

Thus the fallacy is assuming the inverse.
I was familiar with only contrapositive and converse.

>>16559474
>Thus the fallacy is assuming the inverse.
The fallacy is "denying the antecedent".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

>>16556172
Only shitty parents use bribery to motivate their children.
>>16556178
More broccoli

>>16556172
>Which logical fallacy is the child committing?
Trusting adults.

If the parent claims the child's argument is fallacious, and therefore the parent hasn't lied, then the parent commits the argument from fallacy fallacy. Thus the dessert should be forthcoming.

>>16559867
>If the parent claims the child's argument is fallacious
That wasn't the topic.

>>16558765
not really

>>16560349
Learn basic logic before you post.