QED

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.

Speaking of turtle heads...

An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that.

You did. Turtles are cool. Turtle heads... not so much.

Why is that(my words that you quoted and reddened) a red flag?

Not at all. I know what it means. The only trouble I'm having is getting you to honestly answer a simple question, which comes of no surprise.

This answer does not provide the information that you're being asked to provide, and you and I both know it. Besides that, I've already answered this question in that post. A careful reader would have taken notice.

So, rather than reply like you have, why not answer the question being asked? A "red flag" serves to indicate a problem or danger. I've asked several times now, without due attention, what makes the words you've emphasized a red flag.



"There" has nothing to do with it. Meaning is public, not private. Are you denying that?



That is impossible Pan. How many times must you be told this? There is no exactitude of meaning possible with natural language. Do you not see how vacuous this objection is? It is because you make claims just like this that it is clear that you do not understand how language works.

I've addressed this already, but it is worth repeating. We - quite simply - do not go around and explicitly deny all the things that we do not mean when speaking to others. Why would you think that that is necessary for me to do here? Why would you wonder simply because I haven't done such a thing? That's not how language works.

Why is that a red flag?

I've merely taken your approach to the extreme in order to show your mistake. The above is an extreme version of an unfounded assumption. There is no reason to posit such a thing based upon what was given. Nor is there any reason to assume what you've assumed regarding what 'could be' the case. It doesn't follow from what was given.

My acknowledgement of what could be the case, such as speaking in private and the above, does not serve to support your position. Rather it serves to show you that while this or that could be the case, we cannot infer that from what was given.

It could be the case that there's an invisible pink and black unicorn that is controlling Jill's mind. There's simply no reason to assert such a thing. Do you understand?

You have no understanding of your own belief. Every now and again you get lucky and get something right, but it is clear that you have no idea how you do it.

Bah.

So what's the red flag Pan? I'm asking you to explain what it is that you're calling a "red flag" and what it is that makes it so.

There's the colors again. She would kick yer arse in person.

This may be of interest...

It seems that you do not understand how language works Pan. Look at how folk communicate. If we want to go to McDonalds to eat a Big Mac and fries, we do not go through and explicitly deny of all of the places that we do not want to go and/or all of the things on the menu that we do not want to order. We state what we want and others understand. That is because meaning is public and shared, not private and unknown. Meaning is found by looking at how folk are using words.

Why then, during a thought experiment ought the author have to explicitly deny each and every logically possible meaning of every word s/he employs? Why ought the author be required to take an account of every possible meaning, or give an account which excludes all other possibl meanings but the one that is intended? It seems that you still have not apprehended the brute fact that there is no exactitude of meaning possible with natural/common language. That is why formal languages have been created.

Still not getting what you're objection is. What makes that a red flag?

What is there to wonder?

That's just not how language works Pan. We do not walk around telling others everything that we don't mean. Why ought we require others to do such a thing regarding hyoptheticals? The context is given and there are some things that can be inferred from it, and others that cannot.

It is possible that Jill could have wanted to speak to Joe privately. It is possible that she could use her body language and tone of voice along with "Are you the only one here?" to get that meaning across. It does not follow that she would be asking Joe about others in that particular room for reasons already explained.

I mean, how do you(Joe) possibly infer all of that from "Are you the only one here?"



I mean it could be the case that Jill was really a guy, Joe is gay, and Jill had a chocolate lollipop that s/he wanted to stick up Joe's arse in some weird sexual fantasy... but we have no reason to posit nor infer such a thing.