He is not loved because he is a good actor, ...

[navi tasan]

1) He is not loved for his acting skills, because he doesn't have any acting skills. He is loved for his good looks.
2) He is not loved because he is a good actor, and the reason for that is that the is not a good actor. He is loved for his good looks.

Are these logical? I would understand them, but they sound illogical to me. They seem to be saying that he is a good actor and then denying that.
Do you find them acceptable? Would they pass in casual conversation?

 

[Tarheel]

The first one is funny. The second is not.

It doesn't say he has acting skills, but it does imply it.

I don't know what you mean to ask with your question about logic.

Whether you could work that into a conversation would depend on context.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Tarheel.

Do you find anything wrong with either of them? Do they make sense? If you read them in an article, would you think something is wrong with them, or that they don't make sense? Wouldn't the implication bother you?

 

[Tarheel]

The humor in the first one is perhaps unintentional. If that's the case, you might not know why it's funny. (It's the surprise factor in part but only in part.)

They only make sense in the proper context. Imagine you are talking about someone who is known for his acting. That's an appropriate context. That's true of any sentence. Within the appropriate context it makes sense (hopefully). Outside that context, no.

 

[emsr2d2]

1) He is not loved for his acting skills, because he doesn't have any acting skills. He is loved for his good looks.

I'd find the first more natural without the unnecessary repetition of "acting skills".

He's not loved for his acting skills because he doesn't have any.

 

[Tarheel]

You would say it differently, thus "he doesn't HAVE any". (That's the way I would say it.)

 

[jutfrank]

Are these logical?

Yes.

They seem to be saying that he is a good actor and then denying that.

No, they're saying he's a bad actor.

Do you find them acceptable? Would they pass in casual conversation?

Yes. The first is nice.