Fifth Third Bancorp?

I’d shut it down just for having a stupid name.

You just told on yourself. I never said anything about it being discriminatory.

As I suspected, you’re so worried that someone might conclude it’s discrimination you’re jumping at shadows.

I do, do you understand English? Because I’m not sure you do.

What if I’m developing a policy for a discounted medical treatment which is gender specific and will apply to those on incomes below X? I don’t really care why there’s a difference, I just need to know that there’ll be one in the supplies that I’ll need.

I’d wager your great concern is because you’re fixated on the use/conclusion of the data you have in mind.

Well we will have do agree to disagree then, because I think that’s a ridiculous position.

Do you also say the same when someone plots the CPI over time? It is only useful breaking into the different sectors to better understand which areas are driving inflation?

What are you even disagreeing with that I’m saying? You don’t think that on its own it’s useful to understand that there’s a significant difference in the income distributions of women and men? That it’s useful to be aware of that in considering certain policies regardless of the drivers?

I never said that. There is obvious meaning and value in understanding drivers.

But saying this view is meaningless without the drivers is what I am challenging.

I’d also add that the comment here talks to no value without examining a single driver of occupation. There are others that should be examined (e.g. part time vs full time employment, or number of hours worked per week paid and unpaid).

You forgot that people survive sarcasm without a /s marker.

As you say yourself this is obviously sarcasm.

Disagree. Breaking it out by occupation will help you better understand some of the drivers, but understanding that women are a higher proportion of lower paid earners is in itself useful.

Say you’re planning policy for low income people in times of tight economy. You should consider that a higher proportion are likely to be women. Policies that speak to financial vulnerability will commonly not care if you were a teacher, plumber or a baker.

Well you can just answer “we can’t be sure” to every question in life then.

Scenario 2:

Bob: “Are there any apples left?” Fred: “There are 2 in the fruit bowl”

Question - How many apples are there?
lostmsu - we can’t be sure. Maybe Fred looked at the fruit bowl yesterday, and since then perhaps someone else took one.

This is the logic you are selling. Obviously I’m not going to be able to convince you though. I’d suggest we leave it here, although I would encourage you to survey some friends. See if you find anyone else who agrees with you.

>>Dude if it is clear to you and not clear to me, it damn literally means it is unclear because the people disagree on the interpretation. Your is missing the "last time I met the group of people who are searching", which could possibly be minutes ago, hours ago or even yesterday.

The absence of the lines you mention are part of the inference. If there is a meaningful gap between when the person sourced their information and when they’re reporting it, the expectation is it is included. If we’re talking about a lost child and my information is hours out of date I don’t just say “They’re still looking”, I say “They were still looking when I last heard 5 hours ago”. It’s truly inconceivable that with a child missing that’s the way that discussion would go with outdated information.

>> Oh now we switch to personal attacks? How about I call you a moron, cause you can't grasp that if two seemingly not stupid people disagree about a statement, it can not possibly be "clear"?

One person disagreeing is not a sufficient threshold for clarity. Otherwise nothing would ever be clear. Survey some people, see what answers you get.

>> I can see that you fail to separate slightly complicated abstractions. For instance, in your example you confuse objective truth and the information that a message conveys.

I’m not saying the two examples are the same. I was taking the argument to the absurd to show that one person’s unclear doesn’t invalidate a truth. It ignores the possibility of a person being incorrect.

Yet they are similar enough to be identified as identical twins. That’s what you’d be aiming for here, not perfection.

Being the biggest logic pedant is a downside when you deliberately limit your understanding and probability of acting correctly based on a reasonable assumption of truth, all for the sake of purity.

If you live your life treating exchanges like this as ambiguous, your chance of survival reduces. It will lead you to inactions or actions to your detriment.

This exchange has a very clear subtext the child hasn’t been found. No one keeps looking after the child is found. It is requiring absolute logic excess to argue that they didn’t specifically say the child hadn’t been found. If you had been out looking for someone’s child, came back knowing they’d been found and said “they’re still looking”, you’d be lucky not to be shot if they found out later that you’d known and only said that.

P.S. I think you’ll find this level of logical pedantry only correlates with being a douche

P.P.S no it’s not ironic, because someone of your almighty logical calibre should identify that’s bollocks. I say 1 + 1 = 2 is clear, you say it’s not. Well obviously it must be unclear if one of us considered it not you say? No, you’re just wrong,

Disagree if you like. You’re wrong.

Imagine you’re coming back from a search where you’ve found a lost boy. The mum asks “Have they found him?” And you reply “They’re still looking”…

This happens never. Because the clear implication of that conversation is the boy isn’t found.

The goal here is to make the rational inference. Not to be the world’s biggest logic pedant.

Ask 100 humans that question and 99 will make the rational conclusion they haven’t been found yet.

Did you write it though? Or did you ask ChatGPT to make it? 😝

Red/green/red is what you’re after

But it’s an ambiguity humans easily navigate, understanding the implications of the question. So still a fair test for mine.