Do you still stand by this claim?

A honest man knows what a lie is but chooses to put forth the effort not to do so.

It is also impossible for either of these claims to be true. There are so many of your claims here that rest upon dubious presuppositions. We know that the first statement cannot be true because we know how language works. All statements made with natural/common laguage require assumptions be made. All meaning is inferred. Thus, we also know that the second statement rests upon the false notion that it is possible to express one's thoughts clearly enough that no assumptions need be made.

Do you have a better argument, because what you've offered thus far has been found wanting, but not finding... truth.

So, you figure my typing still makes your claims true?



It certainly does not seem that way to me. It looks to me like you do not understand how to identify deception, that you do not understand how language/meaning works, and by virtue of that that you clearly do not understand the meaning of a "literal" interpretation.

All of that is justified.

Why should anyone believe anything you say regarding those things?

Make up you're mind. I guess you were lying when you said:


So which is it, huh? You called it an argument here yet earlier you claimed I had not a single one. Seriously, do you ever speak honestly?


Now, on what do you base that impossibility that you've claimed above? You're understanding?

You're ability has been shown to be lacking in the fundamental basics...

It is based upon brute fact. All meaning is inferred/attributed. In order for a listener to formulate a response, he/she has attributed meaning to the words being spoken. Aside from aunomonopia, words do not define themselves as they're spoken. When we look at meaning, we look at how words are being used. That's how language works.

The petty name-calling does not save your argument, Pan. So, I mistakenly missed one argument out of hundreds of statements. That's an acceptable ratio in my book. It is impossible for your argument to be true, because you've set an impossible criterion for any speaker of language to meet. We all must infer things not stated, because meaning is not stated, and we response to others based upon meaning. Aside from formal languages which strictly regulate and adhere to specificity of meaning, exactitude of meaning is impossible with spoken/written language.

That's just the way it is.

Oh, the irony.

So, you've claimed that "Joe is most certainly lying". If you're being honest, then it only follows that you believe that Joe was most certainly lying. That is a conclusion that, as shown above, is premissed upon the notion that Joe knew Jill was in the room as he responded, and he assumed that Jill meant anyone besides her and him. Your stating that much implies that you think/believe that Joe should not have assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, and that by virtue of that assumption, he is most certainly lying.

I'm telling you that Joe's counting Jill still requires an assumption be made upon Joe's part... and a dubious one at that. You have further asserted that Joe's honest answer SHOULD BE "No, of course not" based upon the aforementioned considerations. So, you're saying that - in order for Joe to give an honest answer - Joe should not assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, but rather Joe SHOULD assume that Jill meant for Joe to count her, and you're calling that a "literal" interpretation.

If what you claim is true, it would only follow that "Yes" could never serve as an honest answer, which entails that the question could not mean Jill notwithstanding. I'm calling that pointless nonsense.

Now, do you really believe that "No, of course not" SHOULD BE Joe's honest answer; that Joe SHOULD assume that Jill meant for Joe to count her, and he is most certainly lying if he doesn't assume that?

Oh, the irony.

Putz.

Nah, I told you already. I'm being creative!

C'mon Pan... I mean, really?

Your argument has been effectively reduced to nonsensical impossibility, ad hom, and emoticon, and yet you stand gloating and proud because you think that you've 'predicted' that I would ignore an irrelevant question? Do you think that that matters?

What a hollow victory. One must take what one can get, I suppose.

Do you not recognize what's been done to your argument? Do you not have the mental integrity to posit a rebuttal or counterargument? Do you not see that if an argument is contingent upon one definition of one word, that it is not even worth it's weight in salt?

At least ya got something right, huh?

I told you that unless you answer that question that it is pointless for me to continue.
You claim to be a 99.99th percentile according to standardized testing, right? Then you know that the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" is the exact same interpretation regardless of scenario. To deny that simple fact makes me think that you have misrepresented your intelligence.

So yeah, I predicted that you'd avoid that question, just like you avoid most questions. For if you were to answer it honestly, your 30 pages of ad-homs, deceit, lies, and unfounded arrogance will be exposed for what it really is. A misguided mish-mash of confusion and ego driven attacks. (which I still think are funny as Hades btw)




Ain't no victory untill you surrender.





LOL! Do you have the mental integrity to recognise that you're severly misinformed about language and communication? Nothing has been done to my argument except within the confines of your mind.

You're opinion of my argument's "worth" is of no consequence.
So please continue, your opinions are quite amusing.




Answer that if you dare... (I know you won't...)

I can tell a lie and I know when I do so. I responded to a question recently (see below) – do you think I lied or told the truth?

Q – Do you really believe all the end-of –world hype about Fukushima ?

My response: We need some very brave heroes, some with intellect about the situation, some with creative genius for an innovative course of action, and some with altruistic heart to carry out the experiment and if it fails, yes I believe the hype.

Now let me ask you fellows a question in the hopes I get the ‘truth’.

Q – Are either of you learning anything of value in this thread or are you just playing a "game of cards for penny a point and no one's keepin score"

Nope...

If, and only if, you stated what you believed to be the case; you told 'the truth'.



I've learned a few things of value, I believe. I've also clearly demonstrated that I'll waste a lot of time talking to utterly irrational folk.



That's nothing new though.