Rubbish!


LOLOLOL!


bushido's words:


creative's words:


Here's on of those infamous sliding scale of requirements. So only you get to extrapolate huh? Only you have ESP and bushido telepathically revealed all those details he left out? Only you get to draw conclusions? Only you determine if the context was changed? Ahhooonly yoooooou?


So tell me, which details in bushido's ambiguous "context and situation" did my scenario alter? It's foolish to draw a conclusion with the limited info supplied. You drew a definitive conclusion, I drew one of skepticism and simply stated it was not clear he was lying. I bet you can't even identify the context.

Normally I'd say "let it go", but "JUST GIVE UP" seems more fitting for you.


In case you won't give up, answer this direct question:

How did I change the context and situation and you didn't? Show your work.


*prediction of fluff, deflection and denial.

out of curiosity

it is highly possible in this scenario that

1. he lied twice
2. he told the truth twice
3. he lied to one
4. he unintentionally lied once
5. he unintentionally lied twice

scenario 1: he purposely told them both the exact opposite, it appears you are under the assumption that if the switch pulled was deadly to one it is deadly to any who do so; you'd have to investigate and/or delve deeper by adding context

scenario 2: truth be told, one pulls it bad things gonna happen, but this other guy, he's cool and can get away with it

scenario 3: this requires that switch will do only one of the specified criteria (dangerous or safe) making the opposite one a lie

scenario 4: he meant to say one of the other, but confusion, so to speak, led him to accidentally mislead someone

scenario 5: he's a pothead and got everything backwards

The whole thing was lie. It was designed to attempt to show how one could be certain if another was lying. It just fell short in needed details that are required to "be certain".

bull

you dont need to know the difference to be one or the other

spend ur whole life tellin the truth
spend ur whole life tellin the lies

u dont "need" to know the difference to "be" one or the other

Exactly!

I think some people are stuck in the 1st person perspective.

To identify with either honest or not within yourself, you would have to know the difference.

For me to identify the trait in another does not require them to know the difference, only I have to know...

If you tell a lie, knowing it is a lie, you are a liar.

If you repeat a lie, thinking and believing that it is true, you could probably pass a lie detector test.

A liar creates a lie knowingly. But people spread lies unknowingly.

A spreader of lies is worse than a liar because people are more likely to believe them because they sound sincere.

Hello prashant. The topic is more about the latter, not the former. However, the two are definitely related. For if one does not know what a lie is, then one would have a hard time recognizing it when they see it. I'm surprised at the degree of offense that some folk have taken to the notion of being asked to explain these things. It is not as simple as folk may think.



Well, one can be honest without knowing if what they're saying is true. One cannot lie however without first knowing what it is that they believe. Honesty is natural, it is automatic. We learn how to lie.

Honesty and lies depend upon truth.



By claiming that you don't know.

agreed

There are people that can lie knowingly and sound sincere.

Statements of personal belief are not supposed to end in question marks. To do that is to feign uncertainty, which is a misrepresentation of belief. I'd call that being dishonest.

It is clear that you believe that the example in question was inadequate for determining whether or not the speaker was lying. Your testimony confirms this. I suspect that that belief is based upon an initial careless reading and subsequent careless assessments based upon that careless reading. Throughout this conversation you have yet to have quoted the context as it was set out.

Bushido argued for what he believed to be an adequate criterion for knowing that someone was lying, a sort of "here's what it takes". Now, assessing the adequacy of a criterion requires granting it(putting it to use). The criterion clearly stated that sufficient knowledge was necessary. That was the context in which we were to judge the example.

Your example assumed the opposite. That completely changes the context. He and I both pointed that out. Now, you've spent the last several pages arguing in vain that you did not change the context.






See above.













You lose.






Ah, for Pete's sake Pan, instead of laughing and answering "no" on Fri 03/23/12 @ 06:20 PM, why didn't you just say so when I asked you if that was what you were after? I'll charitably assume that you've since changed your mind.



Here's what was given...



THAT is the given context. It clearly denotes that the person must have applicable knowledge.


Here's your response...



This assumes that the person does not have the applicable knowledge. So, we can only conclude that you've obviously changed the context by assuming that the person does not have the applicable knowledge.

--

I based my conclusion on the context.

What more need be said?

is that rhetorical?

Welcome to the forums MonkeyBite. Are you basing this on bushido's claims?

Not necessarily. Is there something more that is needed to show that my earlier assessment followed the given context? Something else perhaps?

The following was originally given...

A. The speaker has applicable knowledge regarding the persons and the dangers of the switch.
B. The speaker's claims were based upon this knowledge without mistake.
C. For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must know the truth and knowingly present something other than the truth.


Given that much, we can know that 4 and 5 are eliminated. However, we cannot yet eliminate 1,2, or 3.

Regarding 1...

A and B hold, and the speaker could state the opposite to both persons and therefore be in accordance with C in both cases. That is an excellent call.

Regarding 2...

A and B hold, and the speaker could be making true claims to both persons while not being in accordance with C. That is another excellent call.

Regarding 3...

A and B hold, and the speaker could be in accordance with C. in only one case. Again, an excellent call.

Pan, earlier I agreed that this could be the case. We bickered a bit over whether or not that proved anything based upon the given context. I had hoped that there would be an argument presented for it in which you would show how it followed from what was given, because it obviously holds good on it's own. The subsequent examples showing how opposing statements can be true proved that point, but the connection to bushido's example was(is) still missing from your account.

Via simplicity alone, MonkeyBite has shed new light here, and I, for one, am quite grateful for that. I have been shown that my own conclusion regarding bushido's example is not necessarily true, but could be. He has also shown how your example shares the same 'fate', in addition to adding yet another possibility.

Pan,

I concede the first point that there was insufficient information given in order for us to be certain, either way. That was true although I did not grasp and/or acknowledge how at the time. However, it has now become apparent.






Edited to add:

After re-reading through our conversation, I can now see that you had initially judged correctly but subsequently argued poorly for it. I mean, what you claimed about not being certain based upon what was given was/is true, however, how that was/is the case was not clearly explained. Again... you have my concession to that point.

But knowing the difference is the only way you can understand a 'lie'...

If you have not felt the depths you can not know the darkness and so aid one to life.

If you know only light you can not see the darkness (nor understand one who is in it).

If you know only the darkness the light is blinding and so you can not understand one who is in it (for you can not see them clearly)

that i was and ty

Thank you for joining in.

but to be honest there is no "requirement" for u to have any knowledge of what a lie "is"; becuz u only speak "truth", thus "lying" would be alien to u

same goes for the opposite

on the same stone

if all u know is darkness, the "light" is alien, and would need explanations as to what it is; however, by your own example "only know the darkness" strengthens my own words, if you only know "this" than "that" must first be defined

eg you know darkness first off, first hand, the light is unknown becuz u've never done/experienced it

you stated u r but also know not ur opposite

to be one u do not need to know the other to be what u r