An IQ Test Problem: If "bitch is the new black..."

[Writer]

and "black is the new president..."

wouldn't that mean that "bitch is the new president?"

Anyone? ANYONE? BUELLER?

:shrug:

[papau]

1. Depends on the meaning of the word "is"

[Recursion]

2. No; check your terms

A = bitch
B = ("old") black
C = new black
D = new president

A -> C
B -> D

You can't from that derive that A -> D

[Writer]

3. The implication of non-new "black" and "bitch" meaning "old" disrupts the logic.

I could just as easily insert any adjective to redefine the terms, as you have done above:

(Fluffy) Bitch is the new Black.

(Fluffy) Black is the new President.

Therefore, (Fluffy) Bitch is the new President (?)


or


(Happy) Bitch is the new Black.

(Happy) Black is the new President.

Therefore, (Happy) Bitch is the new President (?)


Neither of these work, because the choice of adjective is much, much too subjective. It's better, then, to use the terms as originally defined:

Bitch is the new Black.

Black is the new President.

Therefore, Bitch is the new President.


On edit to add: You also have erroneously assumed that "Bitch" and "Black" are opposites in the first line. They're not. They're independent, and in this case interchangeable, terms.

[Recursion]

4. You're equating "black" and "new black"

This may be hypothetically true but it's not formally valid.

[Writer]

7. It can be true...

Are all bitches "new blacks?" Are they without question all "new blacks?" Or can they be defined as both "black" and "new black?" In other words, do all "new blacks" fall within the definition of "black," because they are, in effect, new to the definition of being black?

If that's the case, then bitches do have a chance of being defined as "new presidents," because they would fall within the definition of being "new blacks" as well as "blacks."


Now, I'm enjoying this exchange and all, but you used the term "formally valid." Can something be "informally valid?"

[Recursion]

8. Now you're equivocating "formal"

Can something be "informally valid?"

The opposite of "formal" in that sense is not "informal" but "non-formal". Viewed as a logical form, the statements do not make a valid syllogism.

Are all bitches "new blacks?" Are they without question all "new blacks?"

The statement had the form of a universal affirmative, so yes, that is what is being stated.

Or can they be defined as both "black" and "new black?"

Barring further definition we cannot say; "black" and "new black" may be wholly or partially disjoint (only partially if "new" defines a subset like "new cars" are a subset of "cars"; on the other hand, "new coke" is not a subset of "coke" -- it could be either way and without more definitions we cannot assume).

Take the "new president" example: Bush is allegedly the President; in January, Obama will be the new President. That doesn't mean that Obama is Bush.

[Writer]

12. Not that I couldn't continue the discussion for now... I'm going to punt this. How about this...

syllogism?

Writer is too busy packing up her house.

dmesg is not as busy, as he is responding to Writer in quick effect on DU.

Therefore, dmesg should fly to Colorado to help Writer pack up her house.

[BuyingThyme]

5. You mean pitch?

[Dr. Strange]

6. God is love.

Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.


Let us bow our heads and pray to Stevie Wonder.

[Viking12]

9. I'm so stealing that.

:toast:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. LOL

:thumbsup:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

10. Does that mean Condi is running now?

:shrug:

[Writer]

11. I will bet you $100 that she becomes McCain's running mate. n/t

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

13. So would that make Mac's bitch the new black?

;)

[NewHampshireDem]

14. New bitch, new black, old black, old man ...

OMG ... let's just make sure the old white isn't the new president. :P

[DarienComp]

15. Bitch=Black=President? Unfortunately, Billary Clobama isn't running this year...