your problem is that you inferred when I said the poem used premises and conclusions, the conclusion I was talking about was the 'a compendium of evolution' one. Such an inference was not valid from my original post.

Dark_Angel said snow is green is true. Snow is green is unproven. Please re-read my post to better understand this. In my previous post I showed how argument (errantly) had been used to make the conclusion (we are in love). Jesus, why are you being so gay. I read a poem, believed its structure resembled that of an logical argument (premise, premise, conclusion) in parts and commented likewise.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Whether or not the poeme is a philosophical enquiry is not the point. Please recall your original guffhampton: "I believe this poem relates to philosophy in the sense that it puts forward premises which it uses to make conclusions." You claim this poeme puts forward premises which it uses to make conclusions. I claim it doesn't, and have been explaining why. Your latest dumpling has strayed from the point, and we won't get anywhere until you screw your head back on and address the point. Furthermore, you are *especially* especially thick for not understanding the difference between: A: Snow is green B: I, -=Dark_Angel=-, said the words "Snow is green". A is false. B is true: I said it just now. Please reread the previous post until you understand it.