Delaware is home to more corporations than people. Human people, that is, as under longstanding state law and the US Supreme Courtās infamous 2010 ruling, corporations are people, too.
A judge in Delawareāa state with more registered business entities than peopleāruled Monday in favor of a small town that allows corporations to vote in local elections.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz ruled that the town of Fenwick Island, population 400, did not violate the state Constitution by permitting business entitiesāwhich make up 12% of the townās āpopulationāāto vote in municipal elections, as case plaintiff the ACLU of Delaware had claimed.
āWhat is a āperson?ā When one cuts to the heart of this case, that is the question,ā Karsnitz wrote to open his 20-page ruling.
If apple is fruit why canāt you make applesauce with orange?
Good point. Letās go again. If money is speech, then why isnāt the US Federal Reserve considered to be the most prolific writer/speaker of all time? And if money is legal tender, does that mean that some kinds of speech have within them the obligation of others to listen?
I mean I totally agree that money isnāt speech and thatās a bullshit ruling.
Just pointing out that AāB ā BāA. Thatās a very fundamental point of logic upon which nearly all formal logic rests.
Edit: wow whoever downvoted this needs to go back to school.
Yes absolutely.
It is however not always clear-cut that āA is Bā maps to Aā>B as opposed to A<ā>B. We do say āthe square root of nine is threeā, āa widow is a woman whose husband diedā and āthe current prime minister of Canada is Mark Carneyā.
It is clear-cut though, and thatās why thereās a separate construct for AāāB. Itās the logical reduction of āAāB U BāAā.
If those were the same thing then it wouldnāt need a separate construct.
The reason āaffirming the consequentā and ānegating the antecedentā are formal fallacies is precisely because AāB does not imply BāA.
If the premise is AāāB, then those fallacies donāt apply because theyāre biconditionals; either A or B can be the consequent or the antecedent.
āAll apples are fruitsā is a different kind of statement than āAll widows have lost a husband.ā Because āApple ā Fruitā but āWidow āā Lost a husband.ā
And honestly thatās a bad example, because truly a man could lose his husband and he would be a widower, so honestly that oneās not even a biconditional. But most cases of equivalence and definitions are biconditionals, unless itās merely mentioning a category or precondition that is not exclusive to the thing in question.
Formal logic is quite thorough about this kind of stuff, so if thereās ever a valid and sound deductive argument, it always holds true in every case. If it doesnāt, then by definition itās either invalid, unsound, or not a deductive argument. Because a deductive argument that is both valid and sound always holds true.