100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You through?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Sun 04/01/12 02:23 AM
|
|
(*1) 1.)...it is Joe's opinion that determines his honesty.
(*2) 2.) What Joe did was assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe.
(*3) 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. (*4)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 (*5)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. (*#) denotes points above explained below... 1. Something we both agree on. 2. My explaination of creative's answer of "yes" and how it used assumptions. Not my belief as I didn't specify Joe's answer nor do I claim to. 3. Still believe this. There should not be need for assumptions in communication although I myself do recognise it's use. 4. Not only an assumption, an insult to those who do not believe as he does. (common actually) 5. While not an outright lie, deception is used to imply I believe that's how Joe should interpret the question. A very dishonest move and also very common... Some people think that everyone thinks the same way. I know for a fact that that is untrue. His interpretation does not account for children, handicapped, senile and head trauma cases. These people have trouble infering meanings, even to the extent that they can't understand hand gestures. Literal communication is a way of life for some and creative would call these people liars because they didn't understand an UNSPECIFIED meaning. So go ahead creative, keep misrepresenting what I have said. Keep pretending like you've proven something. Keep name-calling. I still stand behind my statements. Better yet, just keep quoting me out of context, it shows your character and that you truly have no case for calling me dishonest. I'm starting to get the feeling it's personal. LOL! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't specify Joe's answer nor do I claim to.
This is patently false. You may not openly admit to the fact that you've specified Joe's answer, but the evidence at hand(the content of the thread itself) clearly shows that you most certainly did. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
Some people think that everyone thinks the same way.
I know for a fact that that is untrue. His interpretation does not account for children, handicapped, senile and head trauma cases. These people have trouble infering meanings, even to the extent that they can't understand hand gestures. Is this supposed to be an argument for your position or against mine concerning Joe's answer? It fails miserably on both accounts. People need not all 'think the same way'(whatever that is supposed to mean) in order for my argument to be true. To quite the contrary, my interpretation of what constitutes being a dishonest answer(a lie) accounts for all possible inferred meaning including the cases listed above. Here it is, once again... 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. Literal communication is a way of life for some and creative would call these people liars because they didn't understand an UNSPECIFIED meaning.
No I wouldn't. Before you go off on a tangent about what you believe that I would say, why don't you make sense of your own claims? Contrary to this ill-conceived allegation regarding who I would call a liar, any reasonable person can see by looking at the criterion set out above that all possible interpretations are exhausted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Oh ok, judging from the back & forth going on in this thread, I was sure it had to be more difficult than that. But it makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe answers "yes, of course". Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Is Joe lying? Pan: Joe is most certainly lying... The debate is about whether or not Joe answered honestly when he answered "yes". I say that that is an honest answer because Joe was unaware of Mary's presence in the house. Now, you've answered to the contrary, but denied attempting to make the meaning of the question contentious. So, you've agreed that the question, as posed, means Jill notwithstanding. So, how does it follow that "no, of course not" constitutes being an honest answer that Joe should give? You need to argue for how that can be the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 04/01/12 02:55 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. Ah, now I see what all the chatter has been about. So if Joe IS alone in a room and someone walks in and saying "Are you alone" there could me multiple answers that are dependent on various thing. Joe could interpret the question as asking permission to interrupt, in that case Joe might say "yea I'm alone, what going on?" If Joe is always teasing the person who walked in about being too literal he might reconsider the first option because he would expect a silly retort like "no you're not, I'm here". So he might say "I was alone until you came in." Either of the two comments Joe makes would not be a lie, depending on his interpretation and 'expectations'. I'm sure I must be missing something, cos that's too easy. EDIT: I guess I should read all the posts before I respond to the one in the middle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Ah, now I see what all the chatter has been about. So if Joe IS alone in a room and someone walks in and saying "Are you alone" there could me multiple answers that are dependent on various thing. Joe could interpret the question as asking permission to interrupt, in that case Joe might say "yea I'm alone, what going on?" If Joe is always teasing the person who walked in about being too literal he might reconsider the first option because he would expect a silly retort like "no you're not, I'm here". So he might say "I was alone until you came in." Either of the two comments Joe makes would not be a lie, depending on his interpretation and 'expectations'. I'm sure I must be missing something, cos that's too easy. Nope, you're not missing anything... That's what this has been about, creative dictates how Joe must interpret it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Oh ok, judging from the back & forth going on in this thread, I was sure it had to be more difficult than that. But it makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. The determination of dishonest testimony is more complex that what dishonest testimony requires. The latter is simple, the former is much more difficult to absolutely prove. However, I do not find that it is possible to absolutely prove any statement is true. Thus absolute certainty is unattainable. We only need be certain enough. If there is no good reason to doubt, then we can be certain enough for practical purposes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Sun 04/01/12 03:05 PM
|
|
I didn't specify Joe's answer nor do I claim to.
This is patently false. You may not openly admit to the fact that you've specified Joe's answer, but the evidence at hand(the content of the thread itself) clearly shows that you most certainly did. I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer. What definition are you using for "should be"? Are you applying your literal interpretation to it? Really, this is hilarious! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if Joe IS alone in a room and someone walks in and saying "Are you alone" there could me multiple answers that are dependent on various thing. Joe could interpret the question as asking permission to interrupt, in that case Joe might say "yea I'm alone, what going on?"
If Joe is always teasing the person who walked in about being too literal he might reconsider the first option because he would expect a silly retort like "no you're not, I'm here". So he might say "I was alone until you came in." Either of the two comments Joe makes would not be a lie, depending on his interpretation and 'expectations'. I'm sure I must be missing something, cos that's too easy. Yes, as follows from the criterion I've set forth, either of those cases could serve as an honest answer to the question posed depending upon the interpretation of the listener. The problem with the discussion between Pan and I is that he knows what the question means. He knows what the question meant as it was posed. He knows what I meant. He has openly admitted to all of that. His claim that "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer does not follow from those things. It only follows that he's lying somewhere alone the line about what Joe's honest answer should be, because "no, of course not" does not follow from what was meant - AND HE KNOWS THAT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if Joe IS alone in a room and someone walks in and saying "Are you alone" there could me multiple answers that are dependent on various thing. Joe could interpret the question as asking permission to interrupt, in that case Joe might say "yea I'm alone, what going on?"
If Joe is always teasing the person who walked in about being too literal he might reconsider the first option because he would expect a silly retort like "no you're not, I'm here". So he might say "I was alone until you came in." Either of the two comments Joe makes would not be a lie, depending on his interpretation and 'expectations'. I'm sure I must be missing something, cos that's too easy. Yes, as follows from the criterion I've set forth, either of those cases could serve as an honest answer to the question posed depending upon the interpretation of the listener. The problem with the discussion between Pan and I is that he knows what the question means. He knows what the question meant as it was posed. He knows what I meant. He has openly admitted to all of that. His claim that "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer does not follow from those things. It only follows that he's lying somewhere alone the line about what Joe's honest answer should be, because "no, of course not" does not follow from what was meant - AND HE KNOWS THAT. You're kidding here right? Complete honesty with clear expressions SHOULD BE the way communication is carried out. Just because I am capable of inferring meaning does NOT mean that I agree with the practice. This much SHOULD BE clear from my words... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best part is that I would accept both as an honest answer. creative had to pick one or the other, he wouldn't allow for both to be an honest answer... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the discussion between Pan and I is that he knows what the question means. He knows what the question meant as it was posed. He knows what I meant. He has openly admitted to all of that. His claim that "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer does not follow from those things.
It only follows that he's lying somewhere alone the line about what Joe's honest answer should be, because "no, of course not" does not follow from what was meant - AND HE KNOWS THAT. You're kidding here right? No, I'm not kidding at all Pan. You knew exactly what was meant, and have long since admitted that you knew exactly what was meant. So there is no ambiguity about what the question was asking for. Now, you knew that Joe was not supposed to count Jill. It only follows that you do not believe that Joe's honest answer should be "no, of course not" because if Joe was not supposed to count Jill then it is impossible for "no" to be an honest answer to that question. Period. Just because I am capable of inferring meaning does NOT mean that I agree with the practice. This much SHOULD BE clear from my words...
You obviously do not understand how language works. I don't give a rat's arse whether you agree with the practice or not. All people infer meaning. That is required for communication to happen. Language is impossible without that. That is not even at issue here, despite your obvious inability to recognize that that is the case. The issue is clear... You knew exactly what was meant. You subsequently gave an answer based upon something other than that. That is the epitome of dishonesty. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best part is that I would accept both as an honest answer.
creative had to pick one or the other, he wouldn't allow for both to be an honest answer Is that so? That's not what you said earlier... Alright. Let's discuss some scenarios... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe answers "yes, of course". Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Is Joe lying? Joe is most certainly lying... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the discussion between Pan and I is that he knows what the question means. He knows what the question meant as it was posed. He knows what I meant. He has openly admitted to all of that. His claim that "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer does not follow from those things.
It only follows that he's lying somewhere alone the line about what Joe's honest answer should be, because "no, of course not" does not follow from what was meant - AND HE KNOWS THAT. You're kidding here right? No, I'm not kidding at all Pan. You knew exactly what was meant, and have long since admitted that you knew exactly what was meant. So there is no ambiguity about what the question was asking for. Now, you knew that Joe was not supposed to count Jill. It only follows that you do not believe that Joe's honest answer should be "no, of course not" because if Joe was not supposed to count Jill then it is impossible for "no" to be an honest answer to that question. Period. Just because I am capable of inferring meaning does NOT mean that I agree with the practice. This much SHOULD BE clear from my words...
You obviously do not understand how language works. I don't give a rat's arse whether you agree with the practice or not. All people infer meaning. That is required for communication to happen. Language is impossible without that. That is not even at issue here, despite your obvious inability to recognize that that is the case. The issue is clear... You knew exactly what was meant. You subsequently gave an answer based upon something other than that. That is the epitome of dishonesty. Period. 
creative posted this: Yes, as follows from the criterion I've set forth, either of those cases could serve as an honest answer to the question posed depending upon the interpretation of the listener.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best part is that I would accept both as an honest answer.
creative had to pick one or the other, he wouldn't allow for both to be an honest answer Is that so? That's not what you said earlier... Alright. Let's discuss some scenarios... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe answers "yes, of course". Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Is Joe lying? Joe is most certainly lying...
Yup, according to your definitions set forth, Joe knew Jill was in the room yet still answered "yes". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter one wit if Joe knew Jill was in the room. What matters is what is being asked for. You know that Jill was not asking Joe to count her. If Joe is not supposed to count Jill, then an honest answer is "yes", because Jill was not asking Joe to count her and Joe was unaware of Mary's presence. You knew that then, and you know that now.
Jeez Pan. Can you be any more dishonest? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter one wit if Joe knew Jill was in the room. What matters is what is being asked for. You know that Jill was not asking Joe to count her. If Joe is not supposed to count Jill, then an honest answer is "yes", because Jill was not asking Joe to count her and Joe was unaware of Mary's presence. You knew that then, and you know that now. Jeez Pan. Can you be any more dishonest? LOL, too funny! You just don't get it, I don't say "yes" is dishonest, you say "no" is... It does not matter what I know after the fact of the original statement. You still feel the need to dictate what Joe thinks... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are still arguing that "no" is a dishonest answer, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter one wit if Joe knew Jill was in the room. What matters is what is being asked for. You know that Jill was not asking Joe to count her. If Joe is not supposed to count Jill, then an honest answer is "yes", because Jill was not asking Joe to count her and Joe was unaware of Mary's presence. You knew that then, and you know that now. Jeez Pan. Can you be any more dishonest? LOL, too funny! You just don't get it, I don't say "yes" is dishonest... To speak of honest lies is to speak nonsense. It does not matter what I know after the fact of the original statement. You still feel the need to dictate what Joe thinks...
More elusiveness and irrelevancy. It's not a matter of anyone dictating what Joe thinks. It is a matter of whether ot not you know what was meant by the question in the hypothetical. You've already admitted to knowing that the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding. Therefore, you knew what Jill was asking for, and you also knew that Jill was not asking for Joe to count Jill - when the question was first posed. There is no after the fact. Your testimony here is dishonest somewhere along the line. |
|
|
|
|
