Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 … 44 45 Next

Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is?
Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sat 03/31/12 09:56 PM
"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. LOL, foolishness. You make the question a contentious matter when you assign unspecified meaning to it. Whether or I not I understand the meaning as "implied" does not mean everyone does. You formed the question, I have no problem with it as stated. The problem is what you claim is unstated. So, the question isn't a contentious matter, only your interpretation of it. Keep trying bubba. It's like in 1st grade when you got the lesson of "May I?" versus "Can I?" Some people learned from that lesson to clearly express themselves, some did not...

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sat 03/31/12 09:57 PM
You're lying again. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sat 03/31/12 10:04 PM
You're lying again. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter. I have no problem with the question. Only your interpretation of it. If you wish to state that the question means something other than what's stated, the contentiouness is yours. I'm fine with it as stated, that's why Joe's honest answer should have been "no". It's you who wish to change the meaning of it, not me. Like I said, your ability to judge honesty does not impress me. Keep trying... I could quote myself to show how I think you're doing the same thing as bushido, but you already did, thanks!

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sat 03/31/12 10:28 PM
You're lying again. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter. I have no problem with the question. Only your interpretation of it. If you wish to state that the question means something other than what's stated, the contentiouness is yours. I'm fine with it as stated, that's why Joe's honest answer should have been "no". It's you who wish to change the meaning of it, not me. You're lying again. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sat 03/31/12 10:30 PM


creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sat 03/31/12 10:40 PM
Should we pull the fork out yet?

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sat 03/31/12 11:50 PM
You're lying again. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter. I have no problem with the question. Only your interpretation of it. If you wish to state that the question means something other than what's stated, the contentiouness is yours. I'm fine with it as stated, that's why Joe's honest answer should have been "no". It's you who wish to change the meaning of it, not me. You're lying again. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. You stated the meaning after the fact, so you're lying about me lying. You changed it's meaning after I showed your inability to express yourself clearly... You're problem seems to be that you think everyone knows the meaning and anyone who doesn't you would call a liar. Let me know when you learn the meaning of literal. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. This isn't about me or you. It's about Joe, period. You expect people to assume things. I do not. I am capable of infering meanings, an "innocent" person is not. Some people do simply "read 'em as they see 'em".

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sat 03/31/12 11:57 PM Edited by creativesoul on Sun 04/01/12 12:06 AM
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter. I have no problem with the question. Only your interpretation of it. It's you who wish to change the meaning of it, not me. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I have no problem with the question. Only your interpretation of it. It's you who wish to change the meaning of it, not me. I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 12:00 AM Edited by creativesoul on Sun 04/01/12 12:02 AM


Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sun 04/01/12 12:17 AM
Who's the one arguing about the meaning of the question??? I'm fine with it the way it was stated. I want the question to NOT change. The deception was yours by changing the "intended" meaning after the fact. So it looks like you're oblivious to the truth too. So, I'll take the question as it stands, and you'll argue for a different interpretation and try to blame me for making the question contentious? Keep trying... It get's funnier every time you post!

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 12:28 AM
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.[emphasis mine] I have no problem with the question. Only your interpretation of it. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine] I'm fine with it as stated, that's why Joe's honest answer should have been "no". I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine] It's you who wish to change the meaning of it, not me. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine] You changed it's meaning... I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine] Who's the one arguing about the meaning of the question??? The deception was yours by changing the "intended" meaning after the fact. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.[emphasis mine]

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sun 04/01/12 12:39 AM
Not looking good... You clarified after the fact, I acknowledged that you employed deception and it meant something other than stated. But again, it doesn't matter what you revealed to me. You never told Joe the "implied" meaning. Hence, deception. Like now, you take a handful of quotes of mine out of context and post them multiple times like it proves anything. Deception, plain and simple. What was it? 16 different quotes posted over 60 times now? And you still haven't shown anything except your ignorance regarding basic language skills and basic definitions. Try to show some coherency here, you make no sense.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 12:42 AM Edited by creativesoul on Sun 04/01/12 12:44 AM
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding".[emphasis mine] I acknowledged that you employed deception and it meant something other than stated. I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sun 04/01/12 12:44 AM
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding".[emphasis mine] I acknowledged that you employed deception and it meant something other than stated. I rest my case...

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 12:47 AM
Smart move.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sun 04/01/12 12:49 AM
Smart move. Yup, I've proven you employ deception. Now it's your turn to attempt to prove I lied.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 12:51 AM
You've proven to be delusional.

Peter_Pan69 Joined Sun 08/23/09 Posts: 2781	Sun 04/01/12 12:52 AM
You've proven to be delusional. lol! Show your work.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 01:05 AM Edited by creativesoul on Sun 04/01/12 01:16 AM


creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Sun 04/01/12 01:12 AM
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding".[emphasis mine] I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning. I acknowledged that you employed deception and it meant something other than stated.