Note the use of the term “nonsense logic” in the Thread title.
If you were to follow this scenario to its most absurd end, what would be the most logical line of reasoning and thus what would be the most correct “answer”?
My friend’s daughter and her cousin were goofing around and the subject of boogers came up.
I quoted the old truism that:
But this got us wondering . . .
You can NOT pick your cousins. Your cousins are your cousins and you have no choice in the matter. So we were trying to come up with a logical understanding of the appropriateness of picking your cousin’s nose.
We started our reasoning thus:[ul]
[ol]
[li]You can pick your Friends POSITIVE[/li][li]You can pick your Nose POSITIVE[/li][li]You can NOT pick your Friend’s Nose NEGATIVE[/li][/ul][/ol]
Followed by:[ul]
[ol]
[li]You can NOT pick your Cousins NEGATIVE[/li][li]You can pick your Nose POSITIVE[/li][/ul][/ol]
We based our reasoning on a Math Analogy.
This reasoning has the flaw that in Math: Postive x Positive = Positive
Recognizing that inherent flaw, we still used it as the basis for our Fundamental Law of Nose-Picking altering it thus:
“Postive x Positive = Negative”, being contrary to Mathematical Truth, left us confused as to what should be the result of “Positive x Negative” as pertains to nose-picking.
Our guess was that Positive x Negative should = Positive, thus:[ul]
[ol]
[li]You can NOT pick your Cousins NEGATIVE[/li][li]You can pick your Nose POSITIVE[/li][li]You CAN pick your Cousin’s Nose POSITIVE[/li][/ul][/ol]
I submit for GQ:[ol]
[li]Did we follow a sound line of reasoning?[/li][li]If we DID follow a sound line of reasoning, did we come to the correct conclusion?[/li][li]If we DID NOT follow a sound line of reasoning, what would have been a better line of reasoning?[/li][/ol]
No, because you have mistaken a series of three statements for a logical proof. There is nothing in the original expression to suggest that “But you can’t pick your friend’s nose” is supposed to be (even in “nonsense logic”) a conclusion derived from the first two statements.
If the saying were “You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, therefore you can’t pick your friend’s nose” then it would at least have the structure of a logical argument, but it still wouldn’t be sound. The premises are true, the “conclusion” is true, but the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises even if we ignore the equivocation on the meaning of the word “pick”* so the argument is invalid. But this is a misguided criticism to apply to the original expression, as it wasn’t trying to be any kind of logical argument in the first place.
In other words, there isn’t any sort of logic here for you to be working with.
*The only reason this saying is a joke at all is because it uses the same word to mean two different things. The humor doesn’t come from any sort of warped logic, it’s just wordplay.
I agree with Lamia. “You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can not pick your friend’s nose” is not intended to be a logical argument, with premises and a conclusion. In fact, it’s almost an anti-argument: the third statement is a denial of something you might be tempted to infer from the first two. It has more or less the same structure as
"She’s a girl, and she’s my friend, but she’s not my girlfriend.
What if your friend is having some plastic surgery done & they ask your opinion on which nose they should get. Then you have indeed, picked your friend’s nose.