Ya want a detailed discussion of this, start a thread about logic. But:
A==>B (‘if A is true, then B is true’) is NOT disproved by the falsity of A. The logic texts will tell you that it is vacuously true - in the absence of A being true, we really have no evidence of what would be true if A were true.
The only outcome that proves A==>B false is when A is true and B is false.
[/hijack]
Granted, but I think that’s a little beyond the level I was trying to get The Ryan to recognize. He seems to be trying to argue that just by positing an if/then statement, you’re automatically assuming the first portion of the statement to be true. I’m trying to explain to him that that’s not the way it works.
To haul this hijack back to the OP, The Ryan appears to be objecting to the statement “Fine, get raped, if that’s what he intends to do.” (The Ryan, please correct me if I’m wrong; as I said before, this is the closest thing to an accusation I can find in the OP.) He claims the OP is therefore accusing the man in question of being a rapist. My point is that this is an if/then statement (to wit: “If he intends to rape you, then you will get raped”), and as such has the potential to be viewed as either a positive or a negative statement. It is not a definitive accusation.