"Anger always leads to hate" counterexample

In my blog "Vague" I stated “‘Anger always leads to hate.' That is an amazingly vague generalization that numerous people could interpret to mean a plethora of different things. I won’t go into the logic of how that statement is very unsound... I'll leave that for another blog." This is that blog (+1 for stating the obvious?).

So the argument is: Anger always leads to hate
… Or…
If you are angry, then you hate.
…Or…
Premise 1(P1): if you are angry, then you hate
Premise 2(P2): you are angry
Conclusion (C): you hate

Counterexample:
P1: If you are angry at your mom, then you hate your mom
P2: You are angry at your mom
C: You do not hate your mom

(For whatever reason your mom has momentarily angered you, but all else being equal, mentally sound humans do not hate their mothers after being angered by their moms once, thus proving the original argument wrong)

Counterexample:
P1: If you are angry at the table, then you hate your table
P2: You are angry at the table
C: You do not hate the table

(You are angry at the table because you hit your shin on it by accident, which hurt. You do not hate your table for this, though, since it was your fault for being clumsy.)

Both of these arguments prove that "anger always leads to hate" is false. As shown by the two arguments, anger does not always lead to hate.

Time for logical symbols and whatnot:

M= I am angry at mom
H= I hate mom
If/then = ⊃
Not = ~

P1: If I am angry at mom, then I hate mom.
P2: I am angry at mom
C: I do not hate mom

P1: M ⊃ H
P2: M
C: ~H

Table:

2---------C------1
M-- H---~H---M ⊃ H

T---T-----F------T-----counterexample
T---F-----T------F
F---T-----F------T
F---F-----T------T

And with a counterexample we prove that
"P1: M ⊃ H
P2: M
C: ~H"
is an invalid argument.

***

confusing explanation of the tables:

M--H

T---T
T---F
F---T
F---F

T = true
F = False.

There are four scenarios that can occur: M and H can both be true, M could be true and H could be false, M could be false and F could be true, or both could be false.

Adding on “~H”:

M-- H-- ~H

T---T-----F
T---F-----T
F---T-----F
F---F-----T

~H is the opposite of H, so you switch around the Ts and Fs. In English, “I hate you” is the opposite of “I do not hate you,” so if “I hate you” is true then “I do not hate you” must be false, and vice versa.

Adding on “M ⊃ H”:

M--H---~H---M ⊃ H

T---T-----F------T
T---F-----T------F
F---T-----F------T
F---F-----T------T

This would take too much to explain (at least for me it would, since brevity is not my forte). Take a logic class if you wanna figure it out.

Last we have the final table:

2---------C------1
M-- H---~H---M ⊃ H

T---T-----F------T-----counterexample
T---F-----T------F
F---T-----F------T
F---F-----T------T

The 2 represents P2 and is placed over the M, because M was our second premise. The C represents conclusion, and is over the ~H, because ~H was our conclusion. The 1 represents P1 and is over the M ⊃ H, because M ⊃ H represents our second premise.

The first line is a counter example because we have all true premises and a false conclusion. A counterexample means the argument is not valid. Thus the argument that anger toward your mom leads to hate is invalid.

***

There you have it folks: anger does not always lead to hate. You have an example right there proving that anger toward your mom will not lead you to hate. If you are thoroughly confused, just take my word for it. I tell no lies (that was a lie).

Vague

The human spoken language (in any tongue) is amazingly vague, and can often lead to a great deal of confusion. There is, however, acceptable times to speak vaguely. Other times it is a nuisance. By this I mean to say there is a fine line between acceptable vagueness and unacceptable vagueness.

For example, it would be acceptable for me to tell a friend "Meet me at my house at 3pm" if said friend knows where my house is. The vague instruction of meeting me at my house would be unacceptable for a friend who knows not where I live, though. I would need to give more specific directions for the latter friend.

In the more frustrating case, there are sometimes vague statements that can be interpreted in numerous ways (making them not only vague, but ambiguous) that are labeled as "generalizations." In general, generalizations are definite line-crossers into the unacceptable vague category (I realize the contradiction of making a generalization about generalizations). A sample sentence: "Anger always lead to hate." That is an amazingly vague generalization that numerous people could interpret to mean a plethora of different things. I won't go into the logic of how that statement is very unsound (let me count the ways). Oh goodness, now my brain is hurting from thinking of all the different ways I could prove that sentence wrong... I'll leave if for another blog. Focus, Hollie!

Anyways, instead of saying "anger always leads to hate," the author of such a statement should clarify the type of anger and hate he is speaking of. The author could say "anger directed toward a specific person over a perceived wrong that is not eventually dealt with through the act of forgiveness can lead to a gradual hardening of the emotional state of a person in the form of hate." While that is still minimally vague and very long-winded, it leaves much less to be misunderstood or mis-deduced. "Anger always leads to hate" may sound more fortune-cookie-ish and wins on the side of brevity, but the vagueness of the statement ruins any benefits to be gained from brevity and wise-person-soundingness (yes, made up word).

Of course, I say all this as a barely disguised rant over people always giving brief, vague statements that can be responded to any which way only to be told that my interpretation of said statement is not what the author meant. If people have a point they are trying to make they should just state it instead of masking it in the brief veils of vagueness. If Johnny is a jerk just say so instead of typing "all men are cads." If Betty hurt your feelings, don't say "People will always let you down." If a friend is disappointed in you, don't say "Expectations only lead to disappointment."

jumpsuits

(http://bellemel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/forever21jumpsuit.jpg)

Okay, really with the shorts jumpsuits fashion? Who on earth decided that would look fashionable or good on anyone? It is completely unflattering to the female body with its odd proportions with the waist belted in and then the bottom turning into shorts that cut the legs off in an odd way. It's an odd design where the shorts chop the body into ugly blobs, exaggerating one's flat bottom or large bottom, making them look either bulbously big or boyishly flat.

Of course, the colors of the jumpsuit tend to be bland grays, blacks, greens, etc. Perhaps this is to keep them from being confused with traditional jumpsuits in red and orange hues? Make them orange or red and people may be inclined to think that the girls wearing the odd jumpsuits are escaped convicts who decided to try and turn their jumpsuits into something fashionable (failing miserably, of course).

It seems like the jumpsuits are a failed attempt at trying to make over-alls fashionable (Personally, I'd slip on an overall any day before I tried on the odd jumpsuits).

The moral of this rant: fashion is a silly world, and it's better to just wear what you like, because odds are you look better in whatever you have on than you ever would in these currently-popular jumpsuits.