Conservative English Major

A couple of people have attempted to fault the logic in my previous post.

Basically, I have been accused of the logical failing of "affirming the consequent."

For those unfamiliar with logic (and who aren't scared away or bored to tears by discussions of it) here is a brief explanation:

If A than B.
B.
Therefore A

If you know anything about logic, this is an invalid logical construction.

Let me put it into the terms of my argument:

The critics have said my reasoning goes like this:
If something is a Conspiracy theory, than it is both fungible and irrefutable.
Hegemony, Patriarchy, other critical/literary theories are fungible and irrefutable.
Therefore, they are conspiracy theories.

However, that is NOT my reasoning.

(side note: most people fall into the problem of "affirming the antecedent because it seems similar to the following logical construction, which is valid:
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, Not A.
I don't want to get into why this is valid and the other form is not. If you're curious, go take a logic class).

My reasoning goes:
If it is fungible and irrefutable, then it is a conspiracy theory.
The theories I have discussed are fungible and irrefutable
Therefore they are conspiracy theories.
(If A than B. A, therefore B - an argument which is valid).

You can argue that my reasoning is oversimplified and untrue (and therefore unsound) - but my logic is valid.

Okay, this is the end of your logic lesson. Normal political and literary commentary will resume shortly.