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?

Good.

Now, how does that work, on your view?

Sophistry.

I have 2 conclusions that are prominent.

Soooo, either you're stupid or lying, I went with the latter...

There's no argument to be made from me.

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)

Well at least we agree on something. I suspect we disagree on why. It is my considered opinion that you do not know what it is that you're talking about, therefore you cannot effectively argue for it. Rather, your thoughts are reduced to rhetoric, name-calling, avoiding relevant questions, and blatant refusal to justify the claims that you are making.

These are all clear signs of intellectual dishonesty. When one enters into a philosophical discussion/debate, one voluntarily enters into an obligation to justify their claims.

That is done with philosophical argument.

...
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!

I'm basing an argument on the possibility that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated.

You have an odd way of identifying a misquote. That quote was exactly your words... verbatim. Speaking of literal, do you still hold the following as the basis of your 'argument'?

...
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!

I'm basing an argument on the possibility that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated.

Joe is most certainly lying...

He did lie if you take the question and his knowledge literally.

Joe Knew Jill was also in the room as he responded to her question.

What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.

I'm basing an argument on the possibility that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated.