100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What did the question mean, as it was posed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? More evidence that shows not only do you have no substantial argument to make, but you clearly do not understand how language works, how meaning is obtained, how to use a dictionary, or how dictionaries are composed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definition of BE (are)
intransitive verb d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green> Definition of YOU 1: the one or ones being addressed Definition of ALONE 1: separated from others : isolated So Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others. No matter how you wish it were otherwise, the literal interpretation is the first step when observing any expression. You're welcome for the grammar school lesson... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Why would Joe say something like that if he knew what she meant? How could that possibly be an honest answer to the question given that he knew what she meant, and she did not mean to count herself? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others.
You're either lying now, or you were lying earlier when you claimed... I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I am supporting NO interpretation.
The "literal" interpretation does NOT add data
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Jill was literally asking Joe if he was isolated from others.
You're either lying now, or you were lying earlier when you claimed... I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
I am supporting NO interpretation.
The "literal" interpretation does NOT add data
I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning.
I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The evidence is not in your favor Pan, despite the amount of linguistic gymnastic squirming around that you're actively engaged in. I gave you the rope, and you hung yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing in the face of evidence that shows your dishonest testimony, isn't a good sign, especially considering the fact that the evidence is comprised of your own words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The evidence is not in your favor Pan, despite the amount of linguistic gymnastic squirming around that you're actively engaged in. I gave you the rope, and you hung yourself. No I haven't. You'll never get it dude. "I know the meaning of the question. Exactly as you stated it's meaning." AFTER THE FACT! "I acknowledged that the question as posed meant "Jill notwithstanding." AFTER THE FACT! "I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter." And I'm not, leave the question as originaly posed. "I am supporting NO interpretation." Communication that doesn't require your "assumptions of assumptions". You are really starting to get flustered, huh? And like I said before, your ability to distinguish dishonesty is of questionable quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever, pan... whatever. Go talk to somebody who has reason to believe what you say, because I have none.
Caio. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever, pan... whatever. Go talk to somebody who has reason to believe what you say, because I have none. Caio. Wise move... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a wise move, and I'll explain why by closing with a bit of intuitive common sense. Agreement always comes "after the fact". There can be no agreement before you know what you're agreeing to. The simple point is that entering into an agreement with another persona is to take on an obligation to another person. That person, in this case, is me. Thus, when you entered into an agreement with me about what the question meant - as it was posed - you partook in a voluntary obligation to keep that agreement. So, using the phrase "after the fact" in an attempt to remove that obligation, is nothing more than to go back on your word.
So, in short, you've proven to me, as well as any reader who is bright enough to see through the masquerade that your word was a worthless offering. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a wise move, and I'll explain why by closing with a bit of intuitive common sense. Agreement always comes "after the fact". There can be no agreement before you know what you're agreeing to. The simple point is that entering into an agreement with another persona is to take on an obligation to another person. That person, in this case, is me. Thus, when you entered into an agreement with me about what the question meant - as it was posed - you partook in a voluntary obligation to keep that agreement. So, using the phrase "after the fact" in an attempt to remove that obligation, is nothing more than to go back on your word. So, in short, you've proven to me, as well as any reader who is bright enough to see through the masquerade that your word was a worthless offering. Soooo, anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't bright enough? How do you explain the fact that you have supported my conclusion and yet STILL wish to argue? creative said: 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.
Don't you see??? Do you still want to argue that I am wrong saying what I think Joe's answer should be? Do you wish to refute my claim thus rendering the statement above hypocritical? Allow Joe to decide for Joe. I've been clear in my posts. I do not claim to speak for Joe, so unless you revealed these assumptions to Joe, then Joe doesn't have to interpret it your way. If you had posed that question to me, I would have requested more clarity as I do not generally assume how people think. I can think of 5 ways that "Are you alone?" could be interpretted. Are you alone? Literally, as I have stated. Is anyone else in the house that you know of? (the way it should have been phrased) Is anyone else here in the room that you know of? Are you alone? As in married/single Are you alone? As in "Are you on the phone?" Are you alone? As in "Does anyone else share your opinion?" You appear to be alone in your beliefs here.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to make the question a contentious matter.
LOL! I'm still not. You take the question as stated. PERIOD! I know what the literal meaning is. The way the question was posed was too ambiguous. You make it contentious by arguing that it meant more than what was stated. Leave the question as stated, admit your mistake, try speaking more clearly next time... Definition of CONTENTIOUS 1: likely to cause disagreement or argument <a contentious issue> Do you acknowledge that the question as stated was not clear and required assumptions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 know, more dishonesty instead of answering a direct question. I'll just predict now that you'll continue to avoid it and repost my honest quotes over and over... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 04/01/12 10:49 PM
|
|
The question was resolved long ago by your acknowledgement of what the question meant - as posed. The meaning of the question is not a matter of contention.
-- ac·knowl·edge Definition of ACKNOWLEDGE 1: to recognize the status of 2: to disclose knowledge of or agreement with -- You agreed to what it meant and have breached the agreement since. Your word is worthless. Your participation is cancerous to meaningful and honest discussion. 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 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". I really don't know how to make this any simpler for ya.
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. Why is that so hard to comprehend? I do not pretend to speak for Joe as you do. How do you reconcile the fact that you keep misrepresenting my words? Do you deny it? Or do you correct your mistakes? I don't claim to speak for Joe, so stop lying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't claim to speak for Joe, so stop lying.
I say that an answer of "no, of course not" should be Joe's honest answer.
|
|
|
|
|
