@JoeW "What are you trying to say here? I'm trying to say that "not (A -> B)", "(not A ->B)", and "(A -> not B)" are very different statements, and if you don't understand the difference. "I will repeat my statement that just because parts of fox news are bad doesn't mean that all of it is bad."
Here: A = Fox News said X. B = X is true.
not (A -> B) = "Fox News saying something doesn't mean it's true"
A -> not B = "Everything Fox News is false.
Why are you responding to someone saying "not (A -> B)" by repeatedly disagreeing with "A -> not B"? Do you not understand logical principles, …
Here: A = Fox News said X. B = X is true.
not (A -> B) = "Fox News saying something doesn't mean it's true"
A -> not B = "Everything Fox News is false.
Why are you responding to someone saying "not (A -> B)" by repeatedly disagreeing with "A -> not B"? Do you not understand logical principles, …