but that could also be me disagreeing that Epictetus' premises dismiss the possibility of being good and not free

i think i'm just missing how you get to
3. if one is good then one is free

someone said something that felt like they were saying good→free, but i read the argument as free→good which would mean only !good→!free would be valid

i guess my struggle is that is come at it from causality, which makes it more intuitive ("the base breaks, if and only if, it is hit by a hammer" is easier than "one is free, if and only if, one is good")

why does "if and only if" get diagramed as ↔???

yay !

this is me planting the seeds to become an incredibly popular defense attorney in 10 years

no thanks, im gunna hang out with the shades and bully 18 year olds :)

we NEED woke union busting in seattle

It was either a Glock or S&W Shield, which are the only handguns approved for use by ICE

seize the moment