100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. If, and only if, you stated what you believed to be the case; you told 'the truth'. 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" 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. I deduce that you talk to yourself a lot... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? 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 your only point in continuing is to continue to show that you'll not defend the claims you've made, that you'll continue to talk about things that do not matter, that you do not understand how language/meaning works, in addition to showing that you also do not know what a fact is. There is no "exact same" interpretation - literal or otherwise - of any expression, including "Are you alone?". If you see it differently, then give an argument for it, and I'll be glad to show you you're mistaken, because you are. Your claims do not correspond to how language/meaning works. Expressions are made up of words. Words have several definitions all of which are defined by other words, which are defined by other words, etc. All "literal" interpretations, if by "literal" we mean how the words are defined, which is the vacuous approach you've employed, then there are as many "literal" interpretations as there are words in the definitions of the definitions of the definitions of the definitions, ad infinitum. You're arguing from ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Still hilarious!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Fri 04/13/12 11:26 AM
|
|
D---(] A gift... What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How droll. Sad really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe you two are still at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How droll. Sad really. What is sad is that you are afraid to answer what you call an "irrelevant" question.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative, you should start another interesting thread. This is getting ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative, you should start another interesting thread. This is getting ridiculous. It got ridiculous when he insisted that the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" was "Are you alone or am I here too?"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I insisted that?
Hmph. Show me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, nevermind...
You can't show such a thing because I haven't insisted such a thing. Rather, that nonsensical interpretation came about because I was pointing out that that would be required from Joe in order for your initial claims about Joe's honesty to be true. Ya just ain't figured it out yet, dude.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 04/13/12 10:26 PM
|
|
Alright. Let's discuss some scenarios... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe answers "yes, of course". Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Is Joe lying? 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. First of all, the last claim here conflicts with the rest, is patently false, and it shows that you base your belief upon impossible notions. It is impossible for an answer to not infer meaning that is not stated, because all meaning is inferred. The following bears repeating... So, you've claimed that "Joe is most certainly lying". That conclusion, 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 clearly 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, nevermind... You can't show such a thing because I haven't insisted such a thing. Rather, that nonsensical interpretation came about because I was pointing out that that would be required from Joe in order for your initial claims about Joe's honesty to be true. Ya just ain't figured it out yet, dude. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/324130?page=14 creative insisted on Wed 03/28/12 03:40 PM red=creative You think "everyone" knows the meaning of the question as testified by your own words. I say they don't. How far into absurdity are you willing to go in order to prove that you're giving an absurd argument? I've already shown how it takes an utterly pointless interpretation of the question in order to support your argument. The interesting thing is that you know, and have concurred, that such an interpretation is nonsensical. If you can't allow for the possibility of either a yes or a no being an honest answer then aren't you dictating Joe's beliefs? Not at all. I'm assuming that Joe understands the meaning of an uncontentious question just like you and I do. I've also argued about the nonsense of the alternative, and you agreed. You have not reconciled that self-contradiction yet. An honest answer of "No." would depend upon the listener knowing that the speaker meant "Are you alone, or am I here too?" So, for "No." to be an honest answer, Joe must first know that Jill is changing the well known meaning of an uncontentious question and asking a rather stupid and pointless one that isn't worth answering to begin with. You would call an answer of "no" dishonest just because Joe may not have inferred your intended meaning. What other meaning makes sense Pan? What else could the question possibly mean? Are you alone? = Are you alone? How hard is that to grasp for a 99.99% 'er? Will you deny that interpretation again? And will will you continue to deny that you insisted on your nonsensical interpretation as the only "literal" interpretation allowed? And just to prove that I'm prophetic, I'll continue to offer you the chance to answer the question that scares you and I'll also predict that you will avoid it yet again... What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 There is a difference between my pointing that out, which is what I have done numerous times, and my insisting that that is a literal interpretation. Nowhere in this thread have I insisted upon such a thing. You - evidently - cannot see where you've went wrong. I cannot explain it any clearer. That is the interpretation required for your claims to be true. Your claims logically imply that interpretation. If you wish to argue otherwise you must offer something more than "Are you alone?" as an interpretation of "Are you alone?" because THAT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. An interpretation attributes meaning to the expression. An intepretation of a question necessarily assumes what information is being asked for, and an answer follows. If you cannot grasp that, there is no point in continuing here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a difference between my pointing that out, which is what I have done numerous times, and my insisting that that is a literal interpretation. Nowhere in this thread have I insisted upon such a thing. You - evidently - cannot see where you've went wrong. I cannot explain it any clearer. That is the interpretation required for your claims to be true. Your claims logically imply that interpretation. And you pretend that you have denied my interpretation? Is that what you're doing here? Even after you tried pinning your idiotic "interpretation" on me? You still don't understand what a "literal interpretation" entails... A literal interpretation is simply taking the words at face value, no inferences or assumptions. I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY CLEARER! You speak of implicature as if you don't recognise the difference between the two. Do you know the difference between figurative and literal language? If you wish to argue otherwise you must offer something more than "Are you alone?" as an interpretation of "Are you alone?" because THAT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. I offered it. "Are you isolated from others?"... (I suppose you'll deny that too?) An interpretation attributes meaning to the expression. An intepretation of a question necessarily assumes what information is being asked for, and an answer follows. If you cannot grasp that, there is no point in continuing here. You obviously haven't convinced me that you know what literal means and I have already told you it was a waste of time and good for nothing except maybe a few laughs unless you answer my question... It is still funny too! Dare to answer my question yet? What's the literal interpretation of "Are you alone?" if Jill were to ask Joe over the phone? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the claim...
Joe is most certainly lying... The following was given to support that claim. 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. 1. Saying Joe "did lie if you take the question and Joe's knowledge literally" is to say that how "you" take the question determines Joe's honesty. That is patently false. However, I will grant a charitable reading and assume that you know that how a person(a hypothetical Joe, in this case) takes the question, in addition to how he answers will determine such a thing. 2. If we conclude that Joe "should have" honestly answered "No", simply because he knew that Jill was also in the room even though we know that Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone beside herself and Joe, then we are saying that Joe should ignore what Jill was asking for, and instead give an answer that doesn't satisfy what he believed she was asking him for. That, for anyone paying attention, is the epitome of a dishonest answer, and being a dishonest person for that matter. -- A few things that have become clear here. You are arguing that Joe should answer dishonestly, and you either do not know the difference between an honest answer and a dishonest one, or you do and are being blatantly dishonest. In other words, if Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone else besides herself and Joe, then his only honest answer would be one that satisfies what he believes Jill was asking for, and thus it would have to be "Yes" because Joe assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe. Your answers to my questions correlate to what you've projected onto Joe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 04/14/12 01:29 AM
|
|
You still don't understand what a "literal interpretation" entails... A literal interpretation is simply taking the words at face value, no inferences or assumptions. I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY CLEARER! Again, it is more than apparent that you do not recognize your own mistake(s). What you've offered below is chock full of assumption and inference, regardless of whether or not you recognize it, or admit it to yourself or me. That much is crystal clear, regardless of what you think "face value" is. If you wish to argue otherwise you must offer something more than "Are you alone?" as an interpretation of "Are you alone?" because THAT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION. I offered it. "Are you isolated from others?"... (I suppose you'll deny that too?) Not at all. That IS an interpretation, one of which that clearly assumes/infers that "Are you alone" means "Are you isolated from others?" You are arguing that Joe, in order to answer Jill's question honestly, should intepret the question as above, and count Jill when offering his answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now...
How is it the case that Joe most certainly lied, and why on earth are you claiming that his honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No"? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense whatsoever to say that Joe's honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No" based upon that interpretation, because if Joe has enough mental capacity and understanding of the English language to infer/assume that "Are you alone?" means "Are you isolated from others?" then he clearly ought be able to figure out that because Jill is asking in person then she is not asking him to count her. She can see that much for herself.
So, if, and only if, Joe assumes that Jill meant "Are you isolated from others?" AND he believed that she was asking him to count her, then "No" would serve to be an honest answer. It would follow that if he answered "Yes" based upon such an mal-formed understanding, then he would be lying. However, and this is important... You've claimed that his honest answer SHOULD HAVE been "No." You're arguing that his interpretation SHOULD HAVE been "Are you isolated from others?" You're arguing that he SHOULD HAVE counted Jill, which entails that he SHOULD HAVE believed that she was asking him to count her. So, I must ask... Why should Joe not just interpret the question in the manner that nearly all folk do when answering that question? In other words, why should Joe act as if 1.he's being a smartarse or 2.he doesn't understand what common questions mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ready yet?
 Make an argument. Say something philosophically interesting or stay on the porch. |
|
|
|
|
