Punctuation primer

[_Dantana]

I have a couple of acquired friends on Facebook that I would like to encourage to un-friend me. So, I thought I would try a little puzzler. But first, I thought I should seek to have an expert on here check my punctuation and structure, so that I don't look like the idiot. Also, the logic is sound, right?

Axioms: 1. All Trumpsters are idiots. 2. All idiots are obnoxious. 3. Not all idiots are Trumpsters. 4. Some Hillary haters aren't not idiots

Question: What makes idiots obnoxious?

(a) Being a Trumpster
(b) Hating Hillary
(c) Being an idiot
(d) All of the above





Answer: (c)

[_Chap]

Um, yes, (c) obviously, in the sense that on the basis of those propositions being true, and within the population described in them, the only property required to make you obnoxious is being an idiot. They don't need to additionally be a Trumpist or a Hillary hater for us to be sure that they have that quality (although they may be); there are idiots who are neither, but are still, per (2), obnoxious. Obviously there may also be some people who are obnoxious but are not idiots. (Think Venn diagrams here)

The only deduction that requires a bit of effort would be that some Hillary haters may be (but are not necessarily) Trumpsters. That depends whether the 'Trumpist' zone within 'idiots' overlaps with the bit of 'Hillary haters' that falls within 'idiots'.

Amirite? (It's a bit late where I am).

By the way, what's punctuation got to do with your post?

[_MeDotOrg]

Question: What makes idiots obnoxious?

Obvious push polling?

[_Res Ipsa]

If you're checking logic, then the only axiom you need is number 2. The others are superfluous.

[_subgenius]

Um, yes, (c) obviously, in the sense that on the basis of those propositions being true, and within the population described in them, the only property required to make you obnoxious is being an idiot. They don't need to additionally be a Trumpist or a Hillary hater for us to be sure that they have that quality (although they may be); there are idiots who are neither, but are still, per (2), obnoxious. Obviously there may also be some people who are obnoxious but are not idiots. (Think Venn diagrams here)

The only deduction that requires a bit of effort would be that some Hillary haters may be (but are not necessarily) Trumpsters. That depends whether the 'Trumpist' zone within 'idiots' overlaps with the bit of 'Hillary haters' that falls within 'idiots'.

Amirite? (It's a bit late where I am).

By the way, what's punctuation got to do with your post?

annnnd thanks to the winner of the best object lesson for (c) .

[_Dantana]

Um, yes, (c) obviously, in the sense that on the basis of those propositions being true, and within the population described in them, the only property required to make you obnoxious is being an idiot. They don't need to additionally be a Trumpist or a Hillary hater for us to be sure that they have that quality (although they may be); there are idiots who are neither, but are still, per (2), obnoxious. Obviously there may also be some people who are obnoxious but are not idiots. (Think Venn diagrams here)

The only deduction that requires a bit of effort would be that some Hillary haters may be (but are not necessarily) Trumpsters. That depends whether the 'Trumpist' zone within 'idiots' overlaps with the bit of 'Hillary haters' that falls within 'idiots'.

Amirite? (It's a bit late where I am).

By the way, what's punctuation got to do with your post?

Hey Chap, thanks for the response. So, this started out as an attempt to find a mildly entertaining way (to myself) of calling a couple of idiots on Facebook, idiot. Thinking that if I made it have an appearance of complexity it would confuse them. I can't find it but, this is the second time you and I have had a Poe's law mishap. With me being the perp. Sorry bout that.

As to the punctuation, in the first few sentences of the o.p. I ask for punctuation/content structure assistance, as I am not confident I have properly formatted/structured the puzzler as to labeling, etc.

[_Lemmie]

Dantana, Chap's assessment is about as on point as it is possible to be, but as it stands you do need to adjust your language so some difficult person doesn't miss your point and decide to irritate you with accurate but ultimately massively irritating probability babble.

Your statement that "all idiots are obnoxious" is a correlation.

In your question, however, your statement is causal: "What makes idiots obnoxious?"

Also, in your options, c is a causal statement: "Being an idiot [is what makes an idiot obnoxious.]"

Neither causal relationship can be assumed on the basis of your initial correlation (for example, some third item could cause both), so you either need to add the option "none of the above," or adjust your language.

[_Dantana]

Dantana, Chap's assessment is about as on point as it is possible to be, but as it stands you do need to adjust your language so some difficult person doesn't miss your point and decide to irritate you with accurate but ultimately massively irritating probability babble.

Your statement that "all idiots are obnoxious" is a correlation.

In your question, however, your statement is causal: "What makes idiots obnoxious?"

Also, in your options, c is a causal statement: "Being an idiot [is what makes an idiot obnoxious.]"

Neither causal relationship can be assumed on the basis of your initial correlation (for example, some third item could cause both), so you either need to add the option "none of the above," or adjust your language.

Thanks Lemmie. I will see if I can fix this up before posting.

[_Chap]

I agree that the OP was rather oddly phrased, and language was used that strayed outside simple logical implication; however, rather than taking out my red corrections pen I decided to do my best to respond to it 'as is', since this is a discussions board not a tutorial meeting.

[_Lemmie]

I agree that the OP was rather oddly phrased, and language was used that strayed outside simple logical implication; however, rather than taking out my red corrections pen I decided to do my best to respond to it 'as is', since this is a discussions board not a tutorial meeting.

Agreed. But he did ask for help with structure and, um..."punctuation." I may have overstepped to assume probability was included in that.

I like your conclusion here the best:

The only deduction that requires a bit of effort would be that some Hillary haters may be (but are not necessarily) Trumpsters. That depends whether the 'Trumpist' zone within 'idiots' overlaps with the bit of 'Hillary haters' that falls within 'idiots'.

[Bolding added.] Thank you. I laughed for quite a while at that.