False. A square is a type of rectangle.

but a rectangle is not a square

squares are rectangles, but rectangles are not necessarily squares.
rectangle is any quadrilateral with parallel sides with 90 degree angles.
a square must also have these qualities, while also having sides of equal length.

Rectangles are never squares, because being defined as a rectangle means that it can not meet the requirements needed to be defined as a square, where as a square can be defined as itself and meet the requirements needed to be defined as a rectangle.

exactly what i said. it's kind of like saying all anglo-saxons are white people, but not all white people are anglo-saxons.
squares are a type of rectangle, so they can be defined as both a rectangle and square. in this case, and this case alone, a rectangle is a square.
otherwise, they are just rectangles.
rectangles can be squares, but only when the sides are equal.

A rectangle can never be a square. What you are saying is that rectangles can be squares if their sides are equal, but if their sides are equal, then it is defined as a square, not a rectangle. Are you saying that since squares are rectangles, a rectangle can be a square? I'm a bit confused.

no! did you read nothing i wrote? i said a rectangle can be defined as a square only when it qualifies as a square. a square is a type of rectangle. as i said, all other rectangles are just rectangles alone.
a rectangle definitely can be a square. as long as its angles are 90 degrees and the sides are parallel, it is a rectangle. but it is a square and a rectangle if the sides are also equal.
did you not read my comparison at all?
here, i'll make another one.
all oranges are fruits, but not all fruits are oranges.
all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

At least, that was the impression that I was under.

You dumb asses. Squares and rectangles are different types of quadrilaterals.