Jamie123

Sadly, this story did not necessarily age well. I'm still impressed by her description of her attitudes and actions.

One of the main scientific models of prediction is called Chaos Theory.  The problem with chaos theory predictions (modeling) is that the model will only respond based on known and included parameters.  If there is any unknown parameter, even a seemingly insignificant parameter - the results are uncertain.  This uncertainty is sometimes called the butterfly effect.  But even such considerations are not necessarily conclusive.   It all boils down to - we do not know what we do not know.
We often think in terms of cause and effect or black and white.  But doing so often introduces contradictions.  It is my personal belief that a contradiction only means that we do not have all the necessary data.  Your global temperature verses number of pirates is a possible example in that the number of pirates may not be a cause of increasing global temperatures but increasing global temperatures may be a contributing cause of piracy.   The same could apply to violent pyrography.    Another way of looking at this is the concept of treating a symptom instead of the cause.  But then - with the example of a headache - treating the symptom may be an acceptable temporary solution.   Though it is quite obvious that the reason for the headache was not the absents of medication - aspirin or whatever. 
Getting back to the op of this thread - are we alive?  We are now getting back to the basics of knowledge.  It has been suggested that there are different kinds of knowledge - and I personally align my thinking to such.  It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of knowledge empirical and spiritual.  Empirical is the easy kind to define and some have concluded that it is the only kind.  I admit that such arguments are quite sound but the problem is demonstrated by this thread - obviously something is missing.  I believe the other kind of knowledge is spiritual.  The nature of spiritual knowledge is most difficult to define.  Examples are concepts of justice, freedom, liberty and even right verses wrong.
Though we deal (sometimes poorly) with "spiritual" issues that seem to defy conclusive definitions we all still hold to them - especially in social settings.  Perhaps the dealing with uncertainty is a primary factor that defines life - or perhaps what is intelligent life.
 
The Traveler

Who indeed? George Rose: he also played Alfie Doolittle in the stage version of My Fair Lady. (I bet he was great, though I've only ever seen the movie version with Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison*.)
This clip has him in, together with Tony Azito as the police sergeant. I love his reaction every time his men start melting away at the thought of meeting the pirates!
Pirates of Penzance - When the Foeman bares his Steel (Tarantara) - YouTube
* I'm told that Rex Harrison was something of a git in real life, which disappoints me because I've always loved his screen persona. Audrey Hepburn is my all-time goddess. I used to have a huge poster of her on the wall over my desk at work.

I love The Pirates of Penzance! My daughter and I once performed "A Policeman's Lot is Not a Happy One" together in a Church variety show. (I played the sergeant and my daughter played all the other policemen.) I'll have to see if I can find a photo of us in our "uniforms"!
On another occasion we did the "Heavy Dragoon" song out of Patience - though I rewrote the words to contain more up-to-date references (Churchill, Seinfeld and Harry Potter!)
Did you ever see the movie version of Pirates of Penzance with Angela Lansury as Ruth, and Kevin Klein as the Pirate King? The police sergeant in that was hilarious!

I didn't think you were disrespecting him.  I was just giving friendly advice on how to interact with his eccentricities in a way that may be profitable for you to converse with him.
1) For reasons stated, you can't get into a semantic discussion with him.  You'll just end up going in circles.
2) Even if he doesn't make sense on the face of what his text seems to convey, there is usually some underlying truth to what he has said.  He just has trouble expressing it.
3) Most of the time there is some wisdom in looking up the real meanings of words as well as their spelling to be able to communicate your message properly. 
But when you're speaking with a person who doesn't do that, the best way to understand them is to not be so detailed in listening to every word.  Listen to the overall concept and try to fill in the blanks with what you think he might be saying. Then re-word it (sometimes with definitions) and ask, "Is this what you're saying?" If it a sincere person on the other end (and Traveler is certainly a sincere person) who's actually trying, you'll get to communicate. Other people may be sincere, but they aren't even trying.  They'll tell you no, then repeat what they already said almost verbatim as if that clarifies anything. Then others who are completely insincere will seek to continue in the confusion and purposefully throw more incomprehensible incoherent babble at you as it it means something. Consider: As a parent, I'm constantly correcting my children's speech -- for vocabulary and grammar.  When I read their written words, I tend to correct their spelling as well.  But how often do you do that with an adult?  Usually, it is considered impolite.  So, what do we do instead?  We just assume that they actually mean "(insert correct word here)" and let them keep talking.
A polite way is for you to respond with an appropriate response as is they said it correctly, but casually insert the correct word and hope they pick up on it.  If they do, great.  If not, just go with it.
In a close-knit group of friends, it may be appropriate to correct a friend.  It helps them after all.  And in some situations (especially legal situations) exact wording is very important.  So, for the purposes of legalities, correcting someone is necessary.
But for the most part, if they're not coming along for the ride... just go with it.
On an online forum where we're specifically having a semantic argument, well... definitions (and spellings) are part of the discussion.  But sometimes, the "semantics" are only one-sided.

You would know better if they had been true Scotsmen.

Yes, he actually meant "anecdotal" or some combination of that with "antithetical". He also tends to get the "precise" definitions of words off by a bit.
But in spite of his linguistic weaknesses, he does tend to make sense in the end if you're just willing and able to give him the benefit of the doubt.
i.e. forgive him his weaknesses and just move on assuming you kinda sorta know what he really meant.  Then you can see that he really has some pearls sometimes.

Update: 39 of the appealing postal workers have just been cleared by the Court of Appeal Postmasters accused of theft by Post Office have had convictions overturned | ITV News
(There were a few cases where the judges concluded the convictions were safe, but these were cases which did not depend on IT evidence. I suppose that's only to be expected: even the Post Office can't get it wrong all the time!)
The important thing is that the judges allowed the appeals not only because the evidence was unreliable but because the convictions were an "affront to public conscience" (something the Post Office bosses were still contesting). That's going to sting. Now there'll be renewed pressure for a proper public enquiry, with evidence given under oath, where the Post Office and Fujitsu executives can't dodge the bullet by "declining to comment".

Historian David Starkey is a good example. Last year he was "investigated" by the police because he told an interviewer that slavery is not the same thing as genocide. (He put it rather crassly I admit, but Starkey has never been one to mince his words.) The police saw the complaint for the garbage it was, but that didn't stop several learned societies throwing him under the bus. The Historical Association demanded back the Medlicott Medal they had awarded him in 2001. The University of Lancaster stripped him of his honorary doctorate, and the University of Kent are "investigating" whether or not they should do the same. (Not that Starkey's worried by that: he has plenty of actual doctorates that they can't take off him no matter how hard the Wokers scream.) Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge stripped him of his fellowship. Canterbury Christ Church University terminated his visiting professorship. Etc...etc...etc. The Woke Brigade have him in their eye, and whoever won't stamp on his head risks having his own head stamped.
And on top of all this, Starkey (believe it or not) is a practicing homosexual. (Or at least he was practicing until his partner of 21 years died in 2015.) The trouble is, he's the wrong sort of homosexual - the sort who refuses to make victimhood the mainstay of his life. To the Wokers that makes him worse than a dirty hetero like me!
P.S. The Wokers even went after the interviewer for not punching Starkey on the nose the moment he said it!

Update: 39 of the appealing postal workers have just been cleared by the Court of Appeal Postmasters accused of theft by Post Office have had convictions overturned | ITV News
(There were a few cases where the judges concluded the convictions were safe, but these were cases which did not depend on IT evidence. I suppose that's only to be expected: even the Post Office can't get it wrong all the time!)
The important thing is that the judges allowed the appeals not only because the evidence was unreliable but because the convictions were an "affront to public conscience" (something the Post Office bosses were still contesting). That's going to sting. Now there'll be renewed pressure for a proper public enquiry, with evidence given under oath, where the Post Office and Fujitsu executives can't dodge the bullet by "declining to comment".

I suspect they don't really, and that by the time they're our age, they will feel much as we do.

Thanks Vort. Let's just say that the younger generation fit into this modern crazy world a lot better than I do.

A few thoughts:
Sounds like you're going through a rough patch. I'm sorry to hear it. The Catholic idea of "purgatory" is a place where we are expurgated (or purged) from iniquity. In Dante's Purgatory, it is a place of suffering and learning, but essentially a place of hope, because its denizens know that they will eventually graduate to Heaven. Only those condemned to Hell have no hope of heaven. In this sense, Latter-day Saints might think of our present mortal life as a sort of purgatory. Spirit prison, as it is popularly called among the Saints, refers to the state of the unrighteous after death. We are not really told a lot about it, except that it is not pleasant. We are told there is another abode of the dead, which we believe the crucified Lord called "paradise" when speaking with one of the thieves hanged with him. This is a place of rest, contentment, and great joy. Even here, though, we are told that those long dead view their state as a sort of imprisonment. The idea of our life being an afterlife, either benign or an actual hell, without our conscious awareness of it is popular in literature and the arts. A popular example is the movie The Sixth Sense. Sartre's No Exit, which includes the (in)famous line "Hell is other people", is kinda-sorta-not-really-but-in-a-way an example of this, almost the same thing but looked at from the opposite direction, where the people realize they're dead but slowly become aware that death and the afterlife are not what they thought

There's also "The Strand" in London:

The Thames was much wider in medieval times, so you can see how The Strand would once have been a beach of sorts - before the river was dredged and embankment built. 

It seems to me this is the same as the philosophical question that is answered by "Cogito, ergo sum"  aka "I think therefore I am"
We are alive because our senses tell us we are alive...  If our senses deceive us (which they can) then we can be sure of nothing... except "Cogito, ergo sum"
I am alive because my senses tell me I am alive, and I have no reason to doubt them at this point.  And that is as far as we can take it as anything more then a pure thought experiment.

Zhuangzi
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/255807-once-upon-a-time-i-dreamt-i-was-a-butterfly

If we were dead and our current "life" was actually purgatory (or "spirit prison" I suppose you guys call it) would we necessarily know it? From what's been going on with me lately it would make a lot of sense... 

I caught a documentary on the Salem Witch Trials and decided to do a little research on my own.  History is quite interesting.   The Puritans were responsible for the Salem Witch Trials.  Perhaps the most prominent historical figure that was connected to the Puritans was a guy named Oliver Cromwell.   If anyone ever decides to visit Ireland I would suggest that you not make a big deal should you support Oliver Cromwell or the Puritan treatment of the Irish.  In short – Oliver was well established as someone that used political power to destroy any real or perceived critics.
I think it is interesting how many view the history of the Salem Witch Trials.  Mostly the witch trials are seen as not just a blunder and failure but as one of the worse uses of power in the history of the Americas.  As much as witch craft was considered wicked and a collaboration with Satan history looks back on the witch trials as a worse evil than that which was ever perpetrated by any or all of the witches that were tried and executed.  
I do not know anyone that thinks the Salem Witch Trials was a good idea or an excellent example of justice.   The reality of the witch trials was that it did not matter so much what the results of a trial were – the very accusation of being a witch was enough to ruin any individual – regardless of their social status.  It is true that those convicted, suffered death but even those not convicted were ruined.  The only way out of ruin was to turn evidence towards someone else accused of being a witch.  Many did exactly that.  They testified to being a witch but being under the spell of someone else.  This was the only way to protect yourself.  If you were not willing to lie when accused and blame someone else – you would die.
So how does this apply to current events?  I believe that the cancel culture is the same as the Salem Witch trials on steroids.   Instead of accusing someone of witch craft – the accusation is that someone, some law, or some institution is racists.  All that is needed is an accusation and ignorant peasant mobs are ready to burn the accused at the stake.   The only way out is to admit your once racial prejudice but to claim you have changed and to blame someone or something else for your prejudice.
What would you do if you lived in Salem during the witch trials?  I suggest you would have the same attitude about witches then that you currently have about racial prejudice today.
 
The Traveler

Polished version:
There was a young lady from Bauer,
Who frequently took a hot shower.
Her mother said "Jane,
If you wash in the rain,
We'll save on electrical power!"

And on to the next...
There was a young man from Leicester*,
Who wished to be known as 'Chester'.
His daddy said "James,
If you dare to change names,
I'll insist on you calling me 'Esther'!"
 
*The English town of Leicester (which is incidentally where I grew up) is pronounced to rhyme with Chester. Until they learn the correct pronunciation, most Americans call it "lee-kester".

There's also "The Strand" in London:

The Thames was much wider in medieval times, so you can see how The Strand would once have been a beach of sorts - before the river was dredged and embankment built. 

I like the last verse best:
The last bit is as true now as it was in Arnold's day.

I recall the editor of some notable paper (which I didn't note) was asked how he selected the winner for their annual Limerick contest. He replied, "I throw out all the ones too obscene for print and publish the one that's left."

There was a young man from Gwent
Who asked why bananas are bent
He threw it downtown
And watched it rebound
It came back from where it had went!

He just couldn't feel
That he'd stepped on a peel.
So through the glass door he went.

“. . .
He was told, ‘if you wish,
It can catch you a fish—
And then you’ll be ready for Lent’.”