Let us be Jill...

As a another matter of fact, if we asks another "Are you alone?" with the unspoken expectation for them to count us, then the question itself is dishonest, because we already know that under those conditions he/she cannot be alone(I mean, afterall we're there too), as well as already knowing what the question means.

Aside from the fact that we're not talking about whether or not Joe's statement is true. I wanted to make an important note here...

This quote is talking about a highly contentious matter. Pan is using it as though this author's opinion is an accepted conventional philosophical standard. It's not. The fact is that there is no one to one correspondence between symbols, letters, words, etc. and the things that they represent. In other words there is no such thing as a standard literal meaning. The meaning of a word is how it is being used. We can see how the meanings of words change over time with how they're used. Meaning is taken on a whole and in context. The important part to remember is that not all statements can be true/false, some are not truth apt at all.

I find it hard to believe that this subject has gone on so long. I find it hard to believe that Peterpan does not know what a lie is.

I can only think that he is just trying to distract from the real heart of the matter.

He knows what it means to lie.

Unless there is an intention to deceive involved in the statement, whether it is a true or untrue statement, it is not a lie.

creative, this whole thing has always been about Joe's honesty and your ability to judge it. You couldn't allow for Joe to give an honest answer that you disagree with without calling him a liar. You consistently try to dictate what Joe must believe for you to not call him a liar. You leave no room for individuality.

Here's another example not that I think you'll accept it.

This is a posible scenario in which Joe does make an inferrence of the intended meaning of the question and still answers "No" honestly. Same actors, same location, same question...

Jill: Q. "Are you alone?"
Joe: A. "No" or with more detail... "No, I have a girlfriend."

And you would call him a liar because you were not clear enough in the setup of the scenario.

The honesty of an answer to a question is solely 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.


Do we all agree here?

This whole thing is not about my ability per se. That focus is yours Pan. The focus is a general one.

This question has come as a result of several different conversations that I've had in recent past. I'm currently undecided on the matter, which is new for me...



So whatcha think, and more importantly how do you arrive at that conclusion?



____________________________________________

What do I think: If one is undecided I think using a discernment method is a good tool. One would weigh out the pros and cons of the conversation(s) at hand to come to a final decision or choice.

How do I arrive at that conclusion: By placing conversations statements under either the pro or a con column as the first step. Next to analyze the results in order to make a decision. Thirdly, before going with the decision you made it is always good to consult with someone before. If unpon consultation(s) there is agreement in what you go with then the conclusion is you made a good decision or choice in the matter.

The honesty of an answer to a question is solely 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.


Do we all agree here?

I think that it's common that people answer questions based on their own experiences, perspectives and motivations. I think that truth is relative in it's conclusions and is far removed from fact.

..but staying more on topic... A lie is a knowing attempt to deceive, not something an honest person would do. Not to say that you can never be an honest person if you tell a lie, but feeling remorse for telling a lie shows the possibility of strong character.

I think that the first statement here cannot be false, but the second cannot be true because truth doesn't draw conclusions... people do. That is tangential thought. The current focus is trying to set out an adequate criterion for what constitutes being a dishonest answer.

Well, I agree with the overal sentiment, I think. However, I cannot agree that agreement alone makes for a good decision, if "good" is to mean sound judgment.

I have no problem with the intent to deceive being spelled out. I think that that is satisfied by a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own belief.

The most common dishonest answer that I encounter with people is the answer that they don't want to hear. Something not going a person's way fuels their distrust for you.

In my daily life, I have to keep the flow of information moving. I've learned that when asked an important question (especially a heated question) that i don't know the answer to, giving speculation is often interpreted as a lie if my speculations are wrong.

Indeed. This can be the case, and that would all depend upon what the listener believes constitutes dishonest testimony. I would, and have, argue(d) that falsehood alone does not equate to dishonest testimony/telling lies.

The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. 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.

I'm working towards getting an agreement here on this, because until then, there can be no moving forward.

We're past all of this. Our current problem is your definition of "literal" and your inabilty to allow for human interaction with the speaker.


I would love to see why you always think I'm being dishonest. Can you justify that belief without basing it on assumptions or assumptions of assumptions???

The definition of "literal" is a semantic red herring. It offers no substance to the topic at hand.



The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. 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.

The criteron to use is a discernment method. Precisely, "What is truth?" So many defintions and applications of it as well. The world is not black and white and never ever will be. We do not live in a perfect world neither are people perfect.

Truth, honesty and criterion ... the problem is "all - people" are not unified in their thinking, each unique, each different, and according to their own belief systems. People, groups will have or come with their own criterion for living life.

What is truth ...truth "may" exist by what is created in groups/families each to their own created world.

One may say or think of another, they are not speaking the truth wwhile the other is thinking or may be saying that person is making up their own truth. For a child when learning will be taught by a teacher, "the grass is green". The child will become an adult and say, grass is green. While, in the next classroom a child is taught grass is brown. This child will become and adult and say, grass is brown. One day these adult meet and have a conversation. They say each other is not telling the truth... grass is green, grass is brown. If a child is raised telling lies as an adult they may can to believe their own lies. They say honesty is the best policy but the question to ask, is who set the policy.

What is true, the truth, is not black and while ... besides, are we to be a judge? Sometimes a person should let things go for they may be more to the story than what you hear.

I would love to see you make an argument rather than spew rhetoric without making one. Do you agree with the following summary?


The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. 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.

So is that a "no" then?