Ummm... whatever, Mr English Major.
I'm a math major. The fact that you think I'm correcting your grammar when I'm correcting your logic should be an indication that you might not have everything figured out.
It means the same **** thing. Ethics is not a clear cut field. It's mutha****ing philosophy, where nothing is black and white.
No, it doesn't mean the same thing. When you say "if something is unethical, then I don't do it." You're making an if-then statement; in formal logic, that's called "material conditional," which we typically represent with an arrow pointing to the right in between the algebraic representation for two statements. In other words, if a and b represent statements, then a -> b is the material conditional "a implies b." It's true when a is true and b is true, when a is false and b is true, and when a is false and b is false. In the case where a is true but b is false, the material conditional a -> b is false.
The statement you were making was "if I don't do something, then it is unethical." This statement also makes use of the material conditional. The difference, though, is that when you look at the truth tables of the two statements, you'll notice that they're different. In other words, it's not correct to say that the statements "I don't smoke, so it is unethical" and "it's unethical to smoke, so I don't do it" are logically equivalent. If you need me to make a truth table of the two argument forms, I will.
As a simple example, consider the statement "I live in San Antonio, so I love in Texas." The converse of that is "I live in Texas, so I live in San Antonio." The former statement is true, while its converse is false.
PS Did you really even need to post that?
I don't need to post anything. But I'm not too happy with you trying to justify taking ("accepting") money from the pot with a converse error. If you want to try and justify what you did with logic, that's fine. But don't respond with a hissy-fit when your logical fallacies are identified.
