Trump Pulls Out of The Paris Accord

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Neither/nor. Sorry, pet peeve...

Thank you, Mister Editor.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

Thank you, Mister Editor.

Coming from you that's worth a chuckle or two.

[donquixote99]

The conditional 'if you think, then' statement you made of course implies a question. That is obviously what I meant. Loosen up.

Everyone needs to make value judgements. If we didn't, we couldn't decide anything.

The recognition of the illogical in yourself is good. The closing lecture was not pointless, no matter what you or anyone think of it.

[nailer]

Please write the question your inferring I asked.

True enough, but off point.

God you are preachy.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Please write the question your inferring I asked.

True enough, but off point.

God you are preachy.

I didn't infer you asked a question, I simply say a question is implied by a conditional statement. Picky distinction, but that's our conversation for you. Question, of course, is 'Do you think it's better to live an irrationally illogical life?'

What do you mean when you say "God you are preachy?" I mean, of course I have a general idea, but I'd like to understand more exactly.

[nailer]

Imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. To imply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess. The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring. https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/...s/imply-infer/

Do you?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. To imply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess. The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring. https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/...s/imply-infer/

Do you?

I wouldn't say opposites, but corresponding functions on the send and receive sides of communication. The 'opposite' of implication is the use of cut and dried statements designed to say just what they mean, neither more nor less. The opposite of inference is literal interpretation that confines itself to what is explicit only.

But regardless of how cut-and-dried one may seek to be, an "if" statement necessarily by logical structure implies a question, which must be answered to resolve the truth state of the conditional statement.

"Do you?" I assume you're now explicitly asking if I indeed 'think it better to live an irrationally illogical life.' As I indicated before, I must reject this this question, as it is loaded with the assumption that it is possible to lead a rationally logical life, and I think this assumption false. Some lives are more rational and logical than others, of course. A life devoid of reason and logic would face stark limitations that I, like almost everyone, would recognize as disadvantageous. Still, I also see disadvantages to endeavoring to banish the non-logical from one's life, since as I was saying, logic also has definite limitations.

Bottom line: I reject the dichotomy you posit between an irrational and illogical life, and a rational, logical one. I think actual lives must partake of both, with proportions varying among individuals. I see rationality and logic as being very useful, until one asks of them what they cannot offer, and then they often supply erroneous advice. But I infer that you are more adverse to the irrational and illogical than I am.

[Rajoo]

I infer that your are implying..........., think I got it.