The ultimate duo.
Strongest people out there, their duo name is YOLO.
Yousef is a Middle Eastern where Logan is a European.
They are described as Mordecai and Rigby.
They will take out your squad one by one in any military Roblox game.
Strongest people out there, their duo name is YOLO.
Yousef is a Middle Eastern where Logan is a European.
They are described as Mordecai and Rigby.
They will take out your squad one by one in any military Roblox game.
“Hey man, you heard of YOLO?”
“Yousef and Logan? Dude, nobody wants to mess with them.”
“They’re ranked first in all military roblox games, dude!”
“Jeez.”
“Yousef and Logan? Dude, nobody wants to mess with them.”
“They’re ranked first in all military roblox games, dude!”
“Jeez.”
by youthef February 21, 2023
Get the yousef and logan mug.by Tripple J June 30, 2023
Get the pull a logan mug.Related Words
by Logan18364 July 22, 2023
Get the Alina and Logan mug.(noun)
A mind bending form of reasoning that seems paradoxical, absurd, or impossible at first, but the deeper you think about it, the more it forces you to question everything.
It often involves circular logic, unconventional perspectives, or a level of trolling so advanced that it blurs the line between genius and madness.
A mind bending form of reasoning that seems paradoxical, absurd, or impossible at first, but the deeper you think about it, the more it forces you to question everything.
It often involves circular logic, unconventional perspectives, or a level of trolling so advanced that it blurs the line between genius and madness.
1: “If the universe is infinite, then somewhere out there, you’ve already had this conversation before.”
Person 2: “That’s ridiculous.”
Person 3: “Nah, that’s Thomas Knaack logic.”
Person 2: “That’s ridiculous.”
Person 3: “Nah, that’s Thomas Knaack logic.”
by Bbecks February 1, 2025
Get the Thomas Knaack Logic mug.The problem of self-application: Can the rules of logic be used to justify logic itself without circularity? Logic is the assumed foundation for all rational discourse and proof. But any attempt to prove that logic is valid (e.g., that the Law of Non-Contradiction holds) must use logical inference, thereby assuming what it sets out to prove. This leaves logic resting on an article of faith—that our cognitive machinery for reasoning is reliable. Furthermore, formal logical systems (like arithmetic) are inherently incomplete (Gödel), meaning there are true statements they cannot prove. The ultimate tool for certainty contains unavoidable uncertainties.
*Example: You say, "Logic is valid because it's self-evident." I ask, "Is that statement logically derived?" If yes, it's circular. If no, then you've used something other than logic (intuition) to justify logic, undermining its foundational status. The hard problem: We are trapped in a system of thought we cannot step outside of to validate. It's like trying to use a ruler to check if the ruler itself is 12 inches long. You have to assume the ruler is accurate to begin with. Logic is the ruler we use to measure all truth, but we can never truly calibrate it.* Hard Problem of Logic.
by Enkigal January 24, 2026
Get the Hard Problem of Logic mug.The frustrating reality that identifying a logical fallacy in someone's argument does not automatically prove their conclusion wrong, nor does it validate your own. Fallacies are flaws in reasoning, not truth detectors. The "hard problem" is the temptation to use fallacy labels (e.g., "that's just an ad hominem!") as a rhetorical knockout punch, ending the discussion while providing zero substantive counter-argument. This reduces critical thinking to a game of fallacy bingo, where the goal is to spot errors rather than collaboratively pursue truth. A conclusion reached via fallacious reasoning can still be accidentally true, and a logically pristine argument can lead to a false conclusion if its premises are wrong.
Example: Person A: "We should fix the bridge. The engineer who designed it is a known liar!" Person B: "Ad hominem fallacy! Invalid argument, the bridge is fine." B has correctly spotted a fallacy (attacking the person, not the bridge's condition), but has done nothing to assess the actual safety of the bridge. The hard problem: Winning the logical battle doesn't win the factual war. The bridge might still be crumbling, but the conversation is now dead, replaced by a smug scorecard of who used logic correctly. Hard Problem of Logical Fallacies.
by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026
Get the Hard Problem of Logical Fallacies mug.Also known as the Fallacy Fallacy Problem: The self-defeating mistake of dismissing an argument solely because it contains a logical fallacy. This is the meta-error where calling out a fallacy becomes a fallacy itself (argument from fallacy). It assumes that if the reasoning is flawed, the conclusion must be false. This creates a logical trap where any critique can be infinitely regressed: "You used a fallacy to point out my fallacy, so your critique is invalid!" It turns discourse into a hall of mirrors where the act of policing logic destroys the possibility of communication.
Example: Alex: "Climate change is real because 99% of scientists say so, and you're a oil shill for denying it!" (This commits an appeal to authority and an ad hominem). Blake: "Ha! You used two fallacies! Therefore, climate change isn't real!" Blake has committed the fallacy fallacy. Alex's conclusion (climate change is real) is supported by massive evidence independent of their flawed reasoning. Dismissing the conclusion because of the poor argument is a critical failure. The hard problem: Spotting fallacies is easy; knowing what to do with that information without committing a greater error is the real intellectual work. Hard Problem of Logical Fallacy Fallacies.
by Dumuabzu January 25, 2026
Get the Hard Problem of Logical Fallacy Fallacies mug.