100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are still arguing that "no" is a dishonest answer, right?
I'm arguing that "yes" is the only honest answer following from what you and I both know that the question meant, as it was posed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are still arguing that "no" is a dishonest answer, right?
I'm arguing that "yes" is the only honest answer following from what you and I both know that the question meant, as it was posed. You're lying again... 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. I'm not the listener, Joe is... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are still arguing that "no" is a dishonest answer, right?
I'm arguing that "yes" is the only honest answer following from what you and I both know that the question meant, as it was posed. You're lying again... What did the question mean, as it was posed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 05:13 PM
|
|
Di's examples offered another context replete with another meaning. We're not talking about those contexts. We're talking about the context of Joe, Jill, and Mary as has been discussed throughout this thread. The meaning of the question, in that context, is not a matter of contention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you alone?" means "Are you alone?". You make the context contentious by asserting that it means something other than what it states. Have you learned the definition of literal yet??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you alone?" means "Are you alone?"
The above is utterly meaningless. When talking about what a question or a statement means, we do not simply say "A" means "A" and expect to be taken seriously by reasonable and rationally thinking people. It is becoming more and more apparent that you do not know how language and meaning work. Besides that, you've already acknowledged that the question, as posed, means something more - as it must. It other words, you know what was meant in the given context. Remember??? I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you alone?" means "Are you alone?"
The above is utterly meaningless. When talking about what a question or a statement means, we do not simply say "A" means "A" and expect to be taken seriously by reasonable and rationally thinking people. It is becoming more and more apparent that you do not know how language and meaning work. Besides that, you've already acknowledged that the question, as posed, means something more - as it must. It other words, you know what was meant in the given context. Remember??? I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.
Are you seriously trying to say that I speak for Joe??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 06:03 PM
|
|
Is that somehow wrong, or something? I mean, how can you not be "speaking for Joe", all things considered? You argument certainly makes no sense without assuming something about what Joe believed Jill is asking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that somehow wrong, or something? I mean, how can you not be "speaking for Joe", all things considered? You argument certainly makes no sense without assuming something about what Joe believed Jill is asking for. OK then, Joe should have answered: "No, of course not dummy! What kind of lame question is that? You should have asked me if anyone else is here..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 06:25 PM
|
|
OK then, Joe should have answered:
"No, of course not dummy! What kind of lame question is that? You should have asked me if anyone else is here..." More and more dishonesty... I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK then, Joe should have answered:
"No, of course not dummy! What kind of lame question is that? You should have asked me if anyone else is here..." More and more dishonesty... I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.
LOL, keep trying... I'm not Joe and no matter how much you wish one of us dictated his thoughts, it just won't happen. Hilarious! Well, maybe it's getting a little sad now... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that somehow wrong, or something? I mean, how can you not be "speaking for Joe", all things considered? You argument certainly makes no sense without assuming something about what Joe believed Jill is asking for. OK then, Joe should have answered: "No, of course not dummy! What kind of lame question is that? You should have asked me if anyone else is here..." You already claimed that Jill was not asking for Joe to count her. You either lied then, when you claimed to know what the question meant, or your lying now. Why would Joe say something like that if he knew what she meant? 
Now, you've projected your dishonest style of communication onto Joe, as well as myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sad indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 06:42 PM
|
|
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" or "No, of course not dummy! What kind of lame question is that? You should have asked me if anyone else is here..." constitutes being an honest answer that Joe should give when he knew what Jill was aksing for? You need to argue for how that can be the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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" or "No, of course not dummy! What kind of lame question is that? You should have asked me if anyone else is here..." constitutes being an honest answer that Joe should give? You need to argue for how that can be the case. Not until you learn the definition of literal. Unless you know what that is, there is really no point in responding with anything besides laughter. Most everyone else gets it, it really is that simple... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 06:50 PM
|
|
What did the question mean, as it was posed?
You've already agreed that the meaning of the question is not a matter of contention. You already acknowledged that the question is not asking for Joe to count Jill. You already acknowledged that the question, as posed means Jill notwithstanding. Now your trying to change Joe's interpretation in order to make sense of your claims by making the meaning of the question a matter of contention. Your attempt to posit the term "literal" doesn't help you out at all. It is a rather 'foolish' argument to make, to borrow your phrasing. The definition is clear and it does not serve to negate anything I've written. According to definition 1b you that offered... When talking about an interpretation of an expression such as "Are you alone?", the term literal means adhering to the primary meaning of the expression. The primary meaning of "Are you alone?" is the one that is used the most often. In normal everyday conversation, it means "Are you alone, or are others also present but unseen? You've already agreed to this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did the question mean, as it was posed? You've already agreed that the meaning of the question is not a matter of contention. You already acknowledged that the question is not asking for Joe to count Jill. You already acknowledged that the question, as posed means Jill notwithstanding. Npw your trying to change Joe's interpretation in order to make sense of your claims. Your attempt to posit the term "literal" doesn't help you out at all. It is a rather 'foolish' argument to make, to borrow your phrasing. The definition is clear and it does not serve to negate anything I've written. According to definition 1b you that offered... When talking about an interpretation of an expression such as "Are you alone?", the term literal means adhering to the primary meaning of the expression. The primary meaning of "Are you alone?" is the one that is used the most often. In normal everyday conversation, it means "Are you alone, or are others also present but unseen? You've already agreed to this. creative, tell me what the literal meaning of "Are you alone?" is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The term "literal" when talking about what constitutes being a "literal interpretation" means adhering to the primary meaning of the expression. The primary meaning of anything linguistic the one that is used most often. The expression "Are you alone" is most often used to mean "Are you alone, or are others present but unseen?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The term "literal" when talking about what constitutes being a "literal interpretation" means adhering to the primary meaning of the expression. The primary meaning of anything linguistic the one that is used most often. The expression "Are you alone" is most often used to mean "Are you alone, or are others present but unseen?" Says you... Are you alone in that belief? lol |
|
|
|
|
