The above statement is true if, and only if, you think/believe that your answers thus far have provided me with the information that I'm seeking. If you think/believe that what I've quoted below captures that, then thank you for being honest, but I must say that you are mistaken. You've not yet provided me with your reasons for calling my words a "red flag", and that is the information being asking for.

You're testifying to answering honestly. It only follows that you think/believe that the following two claims are both true and have provided the information being asked for.





If "it" refers to what "red flag" means, then you must think/believe that there is a causal relationship between you explaining your own use of "red flag" and my knowing what a red flag is.

If "it" refers to your reasons for calling my words a "red flag", then you must think/believe that you're explanation of your reasoning is contingent upon my knowing what a red flag is.





Incomplete thought makes for incomplete statements.

Nah, I'm just demonstrating how a self-contained system can't discover it's flaws...

Post the definition for "red flag" and I'll try to explain everything to you...

QED

CTW

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.



You've said enough.

Says Jill, who thinks that the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" is "Are you alone or am I here too".

You guys are still on about this?

Says Pan who apparantly still doesn't understand that what 'Jill thinks' logically follows from his own claims. You'll have that with one who doesn't know what it takes for his own statement(s) to be true.

So Jill, are you done licking that chocolate lollipop?

QED

CTW

Still no argument.



I don't think that you have one.

For what do I need an argument?

To show me that you're here to do philosophy in good faith. Do you want that explained as well?

What? Do you mean act like you do? No thanks, I'm honorable...

I know why you refuse to define anything. It's is so that you may refute it later if you don't agree with something.


I seriously doubt that you know what "good faith" means either...

Yeah... honorable indeed... here's some of the 'honorable' responses.

--














































--


That oughta do. It's not everything, nor did I get halfway through the thread...



Honorable indeed... NOT!

All that and much more, but STILL no argument.

Yup, all honorable, truthful words from myself...

Don't get upset just because you failed miserably defending your claims about me being dishonest. Don't get upset if your lame inuendos are thrown right back at ya. Don't get upset because everyone isn't confined to the same box that you are stuck in. Don't hate me because I'm right, hate me because I'm an azzhole.

Almost all of those quotes had to do with my disagreeing with the use of deception in communication and the exposure of said methods employed by yourself. Thanks for arguing for me there, Jill ole gal.

There's no argument to be made from me. You have proven yourself to be deceitful and biased. It's also a waste of time because you refuse to agree on the very basic of definitions like "there" and "literal". Instead, you would redefine "literal" to suit your misguided understandings. Then you would accept a scenario that had absolutely zero relevance to the literal words expressed when it is painfully clear by your setup and clarification that Jill was just taking a census of who was in the house and was too effin lazy to check for herself. ( = deceitful and biased) Unless you can answer my questions and agree on basic definitions, what's the point, except maybe for a few laughs?



What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone?

*I predict yet again that creative will avoid answering that question* (I also predict misquotes)




BTW, it's still HILARIOUS!

Ahh. A truth claim. My favorite. Let's do some philosophy.

What do you suppose makes any of them, some of them, or all of them true?