Ah, but the opposite of "to live" is "to die," and both of these are merely the infinitive forms of "living" and "dying." So, the opposite of living is indeed dying.

I protest the line that says there are two staes of being. You say you are either living or dead. But what about before you were born. You were not alive at that point, but you couldn't be dead yet either, since you were never alive. Thus, you were nonexistant, which is a third state.

Unless you go and say that reincarnation is possible, and that you have to die before you can be born anew. But that invokes that there is a transition period, as one goes from being dead to being alive. And there would also be a transition period between being alive and being dead, which would thus be dying.

Dying is not a complete opposite of living because you can be both living and dying at the same time. Look at those with incurable cancer.

Thus, your whole idea is flawed.

--KK17

Ah, but the opposite of "to live" is "to die," and both of these are merely the infinitive forms of "living" and "dying." So, the opposite of living is indeed dying.

The progressive is not the same as the infinitive -- that's like saying being in the middle of an action is the same as having completed it.

~B~

Your argument unfortunately suffers from the fallacy of equivocation. Also, ironically enough, only the living can be dying.

...So, nobody else here actually gets that this is another of Lhikkevikk's wonderful jokes? Wow. That's sad.

Really, I'm surprised that nobody notices what makes this such a hilarious paradox.

also you guys are breaking my braaaaaaaaain