100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Either you agree that the question, as posed, meant "Jill notwithstanding" or you do not agree that the question, as posed, meant "Jill notwithstanding". It cannot be both, for the one is the negation of the other. The so-called 'literal' meaning that you've attempted to argue for contradicts this earlier agreement.
You're either lying now, or you were lying then. Either way, you're being dishonest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here... I'll help you out... 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]
...there it is. Your words acknowledging the meaning of the question as it was posed. There is no misrepresentation involved, Those are your words verbatim. So, how does it follow from this agreement that "no" should be Joe's honest answer? Incoherent rubbish. You've failed to show how my knowledge affects Joe's knowledge. Keep trying... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've failed to show how my knowledge affects Joe's knowledge.
Keep trying... Jeez, what nonsense... Now you're really off your rocker. Joe is a hypothetical character Pan. He's not real. He doesn't have knowledge, he can't because he is a fictional entity. All that need be shown is that you agreed to what the definition of the question was, as it was posed, and since then you've broken that agreement. You've skewered yourself by your own insistence. I've just been taking the pictures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, riddle Panny-wanny, tell all the lovely folk exactly what the agreement was regarding what the question meant, as it was posed...
...then go on to explain how it follows from that meaning that "no" is an honest answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, riddle Panny-wanny, tell all the lovely folk exactly what the agreement was regarding what the question meant, as it was posed...
...then go on to explain how it follows from that meaning that "no" is an honest answer. LOL! Name-calling again? 
C'mon man, you know what I think of people who always resort to name-calling. "They have no logical rebuttal..." Learn the definition of literal, seriously. Learn how to identify it, and speak it. It's still funny, btw... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gawd bless Led Zeppelin...
Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while, Think I see my friends coming, Riding a many mile. Friends, did you get some silver? Did you get a little gold? What did you bring me, my dear friends, To keep me from the Gallows Pole? What did you bring me to keep me from the Gallows Pole? I couldn't get no silver, I couldn't get no gold, You know that we're too damn poor to keep you from the Gallows Pole. Hangman, hangman, hold it a little while, I think I see my brother coming, riding a many mile. Brother, did you get me some silver? Did you get a little gold? What did you bring me, my brother, to keep me from the Gallows Pole? Brother, I brought you some silver, I brought a little gold, I brought a little of everything To keep you from the Gallows Pole. Yes, I brought you to keep you from the Gallows Pole. Hangman, hangman, turn your head awhile, I think I see my sister coming, riding a many mile, mile, mile. Sister, I implore you, take him by the hand, Take him to some shady bower, save me from the wrath of this man, Please take him, save me from the wrath of this man, man. Hangman, hangman, upon your face a smile, Pray tell me that I'm free to ride, Ride for many mile, mile, mile. Oh, yes, you got a fine sister, She warmed my blood from cold, Brought my blood to boiling hot To keep you from the Gallows Pole, Your brother brought me silver, Your sister warmed my soul, But now I laugh and pull so hard And see you swinging on the Gallows Pole Swingin' on the gallows pole! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell all the lovely people what the agreement was Pan... C'mon, you can do it.
See you swinging on the gallow's pole... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 04/02/12 01:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Mon 04/02/12 01:36 AM
|
|
Tell all the lovely people what the agreement was Pan... C'mon, you can do it.
See you swinging on the gallow's pole... I asked: Do we allow for assumptions as a basis for honesty or do we take things at literal face value?
creative answered: We do both. Those are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Still hilarious!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell all the lovely people what the agreement was Pan. C'mon, you can do it. It's not that hard to be honest... is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did you agree that the question, as posed, meant?
C'mon riddle guy, you can do it. You can be honest. C'mon... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 04/02/12 01:52 AM
|
|
Ok. I see your a little skeered, so I'll help out a little...
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]
...there it is. Your words acknowledging the meaning of the question as it was posed. There is no misrepresentation involved, Those are your words verbatim. Now, explain to all the lovely folk, exactly what I stated the meaning to be, you know the one that you agreed to? C'mon... it's not hard to be honest Pan. Just tell us what you agreed to. C'mon... you can do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell all the lovely people what the agreement was Pan. C'mon, you can do it. It's not that hard to be honest... is it?
Everyone knows what the question "Are you alone?" aims at. It is so simply straightforward that very small children understand exactly what they're being asked. Thus, when we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, because that is what is being asked about. Do you object? We do not ask another if they're alone while expecting the listener to count us as well. If that were what was aimed at then why not just ask... "Are you alone or am I here too?" I'll tell you why we don't. That's a ridiculous question to ask another person. Don't you find it odd that your arguing that we should think in such terms? What would the point of asking such a question be? LOL! All you have to do is allow them both to be true. But in your stubborness, I'm sure you'll make some other reference to very small children understanding this stuff and stand by your claim. If you want to break this down, you'll find that I'm right regarding this the same way I was right regarding bushido's example. The difference being I don't have to assume anything. To require someone to make an assumption as to what you mean is a form of deception. Express your thoughts more clearly and there won't need to be any assumptions made. I never agreed with your explanation, I just acknowledged that it was your "unspecified" meaning. Regardless of what you claim it meant after the fact, you never told Joe, hypothetical character or not. Those who read it could infer your meaning without you explaining it, the Mary comment implied the question meant "in the house". I also acknowledge that you employ deception as a mode of communication. Your posts prove my statement true. I still hold the position that clear, literal communication should always be employed. Care to argue for your deceptive tactics? And not "skeered" at all. I am just enjoying the show... It doesn't get any funnier than this! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never agreed with your explanation...
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]
C'mon Pan. You can do it. Be honest, and admit to all the lovely folk what you've already agreed to. There is no ambiguity involved in the above words. Here... I'll refresh your memory. Getting an honest straight answer out of you is like nailing jello to a wall. Here's how I eventually got you to agree. These words are taken from my posts, and are in sequencial order up until you finally acknowledged the meaning of the question as posed, as your words above clearly admit. -- Here's my words that led up to the agreement... If, upon arriving at a place, we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking the person to count us. We're asking if there are others, besides us and them, that are present but not seen.
Are you objecting to what the question means, what it is asking for? When we ask another if they are alone we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, that is what is being asked about...
...when we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, because that is what is being asked about.
Do you object? We do not ask another if they're alone while expecting the listener to count us as well. If that were what was aimed at then why not just ask... "Are you alone or am I here too?" I'll tell you why we don't. That's a ridiculous question to ask another person. It's about a simple and rather uncontentious question and whether or not that question was answered honestly. It is the meaning of that question that you're attempting to make a contentious matter.
Now, that is exactly how I stated it prior to your agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You agreed that when we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, because that is what is being asked about.
C'mon, you can admit it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? Stop lying... I never agreed to your application of Joe's forced interpretation, PERIOD! Shall I quote all of my objections? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So let me get this straight...
The whole of your argument here is just that a hypothetical person could interpret the question in a number of ways, such as a sarcastic sort of joke, or some such like has been put forth already. So your point is that people could interpret it differently and as a result, they could also believe that they were answering what was being asked of them. Is that right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop lying...
I never agreed to your application of Joe's forced interpretation, PERIOD! Shall I quote all of my objections? So what?  I never said that you did! Do you grasp the importance of that brute fact? 
The fact shows deceptive and dishonest behavior on display. First of all, I have not claimed that you agreed to my "application of Joe's forced interpretation", therefore I cannot possibly be lying about that. I've never said that, nor have I implied such a thing. Secondly, your objections completely miss the mark. The whole point of my explaining what the question meant was to clarify the given context and avoid arguing about the well-known meaning of an uncontentious question. I went to great lengths to explain the meaning of the question. That is supported by the facts, as they occurred and can be observed by looking back through the thread. After going through that, you finally acknowledged that the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding. It was posed in the context of Joe, Jill, and Mary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you have acknowledged what the question meant, as posed. Since you have acknowledged that the question, as posed to Joe, meant Jill notwithstanding, and you have claimed that you're not attempting to make the meaning of the question a matter of contention, then upon what ground do you base the conclusion that Joe's answer should be "no, of course not"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Mon 04/02/12 11:59 AM
|
|
Stop lying...
I never agreed to your application of Joe's forced interpretation, PERIOD! Shall I quote all of my objections? So what? I never said that you did! Do you grasp the importance of that brute fact?
The fact shows deceptive and dishonest behavior on display. First of all, I have not claimed that you agreed to my "application of Joe's forced interpretation", therefore I cannot possibly be lying about that. I've never said that, nor have I implied such a thing. Secondly, your objections completely miss the mark. The whole point of my explaining what the question meant was to clarify the given context and avoid arguing about the well-known meaning of an uncontentious question. I went to great lengths to explain the meaning of the question. That is supported by the facts, as they occurred and can be observed by looking back through the thread. After going through that, you finally acknowledged that the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding. It was posed in the context of Joe, Jill, and Mary. Lying again... I never agreed with your explanation...
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]
C'mon Pan. You can do it. Be honest, and admit to all the lovely folk what you've already agreed to. There is no ambiguity involved in the above words. Here... I'll refresh your memory. Getting an honest straight answer out of you is like nailing jello to a wall. Here's how I eventually got you to agree. These words are taken from my posts, and are in sequencial order up until you finally acknowledged the meaning of the question as posed, as your words above clearly admit. -- Here's my words that led up to the agreement... If, upon arriving at a place, we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking the person to count us. We're asking if there are others, besides us and them, that are present but not seen.
Are you objecting to what the question means, what it is asking for? When we ask another if they are alone we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, that is what is being asked about...
...when we ask another if they are alone, we are not asking them to count us. We are asking them if, besides us and them, anyone else is present but unseen. That's what the question means, because that is what is being asked about.
Do you object? We do not ask another if they're alone while expecting the listener to count us as well. If that were what was aimed at then why not just ask... "Are you alone or am I here too?" I'll tell you why we don't. That's a ridiculous question to ask another person. It's about a simple and rather uncontentious question and whether or not that question was answered honestly. It is the meaning of that question that you're attempting to make a contentious matter.
Now, that is exactly how I stated it prior to your agreement. I'll never agree with deception and dishonesty... |
|
|
|
|
