100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
It is the meaning of that question that you're attempting to make a contentious matter.
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
You assume that you know Joe's understanding of the question.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
You assume to know Jill's intended meaning.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I am supporting NO interpretation.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
People are dictating what is supposed to be assumed and what is not supposed to be assumed.
I find it quite ironic... I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
First you assume that Joe knows what to assume from your question.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
You assume that the other party makes an assumption.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
The difference being I don't have to assume anything.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
"Jill notwithstanding" was NOT part of the original question as stated.
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
So which one is the lie??? Just one is all you need, just one... LOL, keep trying. It looks like you are obsessed with quoting me, I blush. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
People are dictating what is supposed to be assumed and what is not supposed to be assumed.
I find it quite ironic... I am supporting NO interpretation.
The "literal" interpretation does NOT add data
The "literal" interpretation should be as follows if, as per your setup, Jill entered the room.
Q. "Are you alone?" A. "No" or with more detail... "No, you are in here too." The difference being I don't have to assume anything.
"Are you alone" means "Are you alone"
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
You assume that you know Joe's understanding of the question.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding. It is not my opinion that matters, it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding. It is not my opinion that matters, it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
...it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, I honestly think you're making a fool of yourself. Show how I don't believe what I wrote. Show your work... Hilarious!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Cheer_up
on
Fri 03/30/12 06:38 PM
|
|
LOLLLLLLL you 2 still going at it?
       
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOLLLLLLL you 2 still going at it?
I honestly do not know what he's doing. Can't wait to see what happens next though. I'm betting some ill-timed victory dance is coming soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Di. 
You're not missing much... It is my contention that 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. Aha! Yes, thanks - silly me, I just realized that you said that only a few posts before my own. I can't think of a reason to disagree with you, very good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Di.
You're not missing much... It is my contention that 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. Aha! Yes, thanks - silly me, I just realized that you said that only a few posts before my own. I can't think of a reason to disagree with you, very good. That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my contention that 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.
That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Monier
on
Sat 03/31/12 12:11 AM
|
|
This thread would be more interesting and perhaps simpler to resolve in another language. Let's try Latin.
ficta voluptatis causa sint proxima veris (In order to please, fictions should approximate the truth) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread would be more interesting and perhaps simpler to resolve in another language. Let's try Latin. ficta voluptatis causa sint proxima veris (In order to please, fictions should approximate the truth) Hi Monier, interesting idea but perhaps French would be better. Latin has been a 'dead' language for a long time so in some respects a discussion of this nature might not be so encumbered with definition problems. On the other hand, French, while certainly not dead, is a controlled language. The effort of the French government was to prevent language drift that occurs through changing definitions. The idea is that communication is suppose to be more effective as people cannot fall into disagreement about what terms mean as often as with langurages that are significantly altered by sub-culture and trends. Interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my contention that 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.
That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? I am saying that a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own belief. If one states "X" but but does believe "X", then one is lying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, I honestly think you're making a fool of yourself. Show how I don't believe what I wrote. Show your work... Hilarious!!!! 
...it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 03/31/12 09:32 PM
|
|
It is my contention that 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.
That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? In addition to my earlier comment, I'd like to add something else. Contrary to my interlocutor's opinion, which is wrong, multiple meanings are irrelevant to whether or not a speaker is answering a question dishonestly. IOW, what the questioner is asking for isn't relevant to what constitutes a dishonest answer. What is relevant is that the answer offered match up to what the answerer thinks is being asked for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 03/31/12 09:38 PM
|
|
1.)...it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
2.) What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
3.) I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
The hypothetical in question is one of Joe, Jill, and Mary. Joe and Mary are in a house. Joe does not know that Mary is in another room. Jill walks in and asks Joe "Are you alone?" Joe answers "Yes". My interlocutor is attempting to claim all 3. Assuming rational thought, at least one of the above statements is a lie. If that is not the case, then all three are prima facie evidence of cognitive dissonance. Either way, it is adequate grounds for rejecting the testimony of the speaker. We need not know which one is a lie(if that is the case), all we need to know is that if my interlocutor believes 1 and 2, then he cannot possibly believe 3 without self-contradiction, and if he believes 3, then he cannot possibly believe 1 and 2. That is clear because if 1 and 2 are true, then 3 must be false because "yes" is the only possible honest answer following from 1 and 2. That is because Joe does not know that Mary is in the other room. If 3 is true, then 2 is false. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, I honestly think you're making a fool of yourself. Show how I don't believe what I wrote. Show your work... Hilarious!!!!
...it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
"it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty" = something we both agree on. "What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe" = my explanation of your answer of Joe's. (that's you dictating his thoughts) "I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer." = My statement, which I still believe. You've done nothing except show that you can take my words out of context. Deceitful, if you ask me. And still apears foolish... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty" = something we both agree on.
"What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe" = my explanation of your answer of Joe's. (that's you dictating his thoughts) "I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer." = My statement, which I still believe. You've done nothing except show that you can take my words out of context. Deceitful, if you ask me. And still apears foolish... You're lying again. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my contention that 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.
That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? In addition to my earlier comment, I'd like to add something else. Contrary to my interlocutor's opinion, which is wrong, multiple meanings are irrelevant to whether or not a speaker is answering a question dishonestly. IOW, what the questioner is asking for isn't relevant to what constitutes a dishonest answer. What is relevant is that the answer offered match up to what the answerer thinks is being asked for. They are perfectly relevant. Jill calls Joe, a single father of 2, on the phone. Jill asks Joe if he's alone. He say's "yes" which prompts Jill to drive 30 minutes to his house. Jill is greeted at the door by Joe's 2 children. Did Joe lie? Joe had 2 primary choices for the meaning of "alone". Alone in the room or alone in the house. It's not upto you to decide which one Joe chooses to answer no matter how much you wish you had that power. |
|
|
|
|
