100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 04/06/12 07:27 PM
|
|
So what's the red flag Pan? I'm asking you to explain what it is that you're calling a "red flag" and what it is that makes it so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what's the red flag Pan? I'm asking you to explain what it is that you're calling a "red flag" and what it is that makes it so. You will have to explain it, not me... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have no understanding of your own belief. Every now and again you get lucky and get something right, but it is clear that you have no idea how you do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with lots of experience yes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth and lie both are meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have no understanding of your own belief. Every now and again you get lucky and get something right, but it is clear that you have no idea how you do it. I have no idea what to think of this. Could you tell me? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is there to wonder? This red flag... I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?"  I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing. Well you didn't explicitly deny such a possibility, makes me wonder now... Why is that a red flag? I've merely taken your approach to the extreme in order to show your mistake. The above is an extreme version of an unfounded assumption. There is no reason to posit such a thing based upon what was given. Nor is there any reason to assume what you've assumed regarding what 'could be' the case. It doesn't follow from what was given. My acknowledgement of what could be the case, such as speaking in private and the above, does not serve to support your position. Rather it serves to show you that while this or that could be the case, we cannot infer that from what was given. It could be the case that there's an invisible pink and black unicorn that is controlling Jill's mind. There's simply no reason to assert such a thing. Do you understand? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?" I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing. Well you didn't explicitly deny such a possibility, makes me wonder now... I've addressed this already, but it is worth repeating. We - quite simply - do not go around and explicitly deny all the things that we do not mean when speaking to others. Why would you think that that is necessary for me to do here? Why would you wonder simply because I haven't done such a thing? That's not how language works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is there to wonder? This red flag... I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?" I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing. Well you didn't explicitly deny such a possibility, makes me wonder now... Why is that a red flag? I've merely taken your approach to the extreme in order to show your mistake. The above is an extreme version of an unfounded assumption. There is no reason to posit such a thing based upon what was given. Nor is there any reason to assume what you've assumed regarding what 'could be' the case. It doesn't follow from what was given. My acknowledgement of what could be the case, such as speaking in private and the above, does not serve to support your position. Rather it serves to show you that while this or that could be the case, we cannot infer that from what was given. It could be the case that there's an invisible pink and black unicorn that is controlling Jill's mind. There's simply no reason to assert such a thing. Do you understand? Why is it NOT a red flag??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look at how folk communicate. If we want to go to McDonalds to eat a Big Mac and fries, we do not go through and explicitly deny of all of the places that we do not want to go and/or all of the things on the menu that we do not want to order. We state what we want and others understand. "We", do NOT get confused over a "red flag" and misjudge the topic of my sentence. So, rather than reply like you have, why not answer the question being asked? A "red flag" serves to indicate a problem or danger. I've asked several times now, without due attention, what makes the words you've emphasized a red flag. That is because meaning is public and shared, not private and unknown. Meaning is found by looking at how folk are using words. You jest of course. I asked for your interpretation of "there" and you kept it private untill well after the fact.  "There" has nothing to do with it. Meaning is public, not private. Are you denying that? The author should learn to express her thoughts more clearly so as to not allow for assumptions... That is impossible Pan. How many times must you be told this? There is no exactitude of meaning possible with natural language. Do you not see how vacuous this objection is? It is because you make claims just like this that it is clear that you do not understand how language works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 04/07/12 07:17 AM
|
|
Why is it NOT a red flag??? This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it NOT a red flag??? This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice. You seem to be having trouble with the common phrase "red flag", is this correct??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it NOT a red flag??? This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice. You seem to be having trouble with the common phrase "red flag", is this correct??? Not at all. I know what it means. The only trouble I'm having is getting you to honestly answer a simple question, which comes of no surprise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is that(my words that you quoted and reddened) a red flag?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I say I liked Turtles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I say I liked Turtles? You did. Turtles are cool. Turtle heads... not so much. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is there to wonder? This red flag... I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?" I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing. Well you didn't explicitly deny such a possibility, makes me wonder now... Why is that a red flag? I've merely taken your approach to the extreme in order to show your mistake. The above is an extreme version of an unfounded assumption. There is no reason to posit such a thing based upon what was given. Nor is there any reason to assume what you've assumed regarding what 'could be' the case. It doesn't follow from what was given. My acknowledgement of what could be the case, such as speaking in private and the above, does not serve to support your position. Rather it serves to show you that while this or that could be the case, we cannot infer that from what was given. It could be the case that there's an invisible pink and black unicorn that is controlling Jill's mind. There's simply no reason to assert such a thing. Do you understand? Why is it NOT a red flag??? This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice. You seem to be having trouble with the common phrase "red flag", is this correct??? An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is there to wonder? This red flag... I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?" I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing. Well you didn't explicitly deny such a possibility, makes me wonder now... Why is that a red flag? I've merely taken your approach to the extreme in order to show your mistake. The above is an extreme version of an unfounded assumption. There is no reason to posit such a thing based upon what was given. Nor is there any reason to assume what you've assumed regarding what 'could be' the case. It doesn't follow from what was given. My acknowledgement of what could be the case, such as speaking in private and the above, does not serve to support your position. Rather it serves to show you that while this or that could be the case, we cannot infer that from what was given. It could be the case that there's an invisible pink and black unicorn that is controlling Jill's mind. There's simply no reason to assert such a thing. Do you understand? Why is it NOT a red flag??? This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice. You seem to be having trouble with the common phrase "red flag", is this correct??? An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. I answered honestly. You must know what a red flag is before I could explain it. Once you know what a red flag is, I won't have to... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of turtle heads...
|
|
|
|
|
