At least ya got something right, huh?

C'mon Pan... I mean, really?

Your argument has been effectively reduced to nonsensical impossibility, ad hom, and emoticon, and yet you stand gloating and proud because you think that you've 'predicted' that I would ignore an irrelevant question? Do you think that that matters?

What a hollow victory. One must take what one can get, I suppose.

Do you not recognize what's been done to your argument? Do you not have the mental integrity to posit a rebuttal or counterargument? Do you not see that if an argument is contingent upon one definition of one word, that it is not even worth it's weight in salt?

Putz.

Oh, the irony.

Now, do you really believe that "No, of course not" SHOULD BE Joe's honest answer; that Joe SHOULD assume that Jill meant for Joe to count her, and he is most certainly lying if he doesn't assume that?

So, you've claimed that "Joe is most certainly lying". If you're being honest, then it only follows that you believe that Joe was most certainly lying. That is a conclusion that, as shown above, is premissed upon the notion that Joe knew Jill was in the room as he responded, and he assumed that Jill meant anyone besides her and him. Your stating that much implies that you think/believe that Joe should not have assumed that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, and that by virtue of that assumption, he is most certainly lying.

I'm telling you that Joe's counting Jill still requires an assumption be made upon Joe's part... and a dubious one at that. You have further asserted that Joe's honest answer SHOULD BE "No, of course not" based upon the aforementioned considerations. So, you're saying that - in order for Joe to give an honest answer - Joe should not assume that Jill meant anyone besides herself and Joe, but rather Joe SHOULD assume that Jill meant for Joe to count her, and you're calling that a "literal" interpretation.

If what you claim is true, it would only follow that "Yes" could never serve as an honest answer, which entails that the question could not mean Jill notwithstanding. I'm calling that pointless nonsense.

Oh, the irony.

It is based upon brute fact. All meaning is inferred/attributed. In order for a listener to formulate a response, he/she has attributed meaning to the words being spoken. Aside from aunomonopia, words do not define themselves as they're spoken. When we look at meaning, we look at how words are being used. That's how language works.

The petty name-calling does not save your argument, Pan. So, I mistakenly missed one argument out of hundreds of statements. That's an acceptable ratio in my book. It is impossible for your argument to be true, because you've set an impossible criterion for any speaker of language to meet. We all must infer things not stated, because meaning is not stated, and we response to others based upon meaning. Aside from formal languages which strictly regulate and adhere to specificity of meaning, exactitude of meaning is impossible with spoken/written language.

That's just the way it is.

So, you figure my typing still makes your claims true?



It certainly does not seem that way to me. It looks to me like you do not understand how to identify deception, that you do not understand how language/meaning works, and by virtue of that that you clearly do not understand the meaning of a "literal" interpretation.

All of that is justified.

Why should anyone believe anything you say regarding those things?

Do you have a better argument, because what you've offered thus far has been found wanting, but not finding... truth.

It is also impossible for either of these claims to be true. There are so many of your claims here that rest upon dubious presuppositions. We know that the first statement cannot be true because we know how language works. All statements made with natural/common laguage require assumptions be made. All meaning is inferred. Thus, we also know that the second statement rests upon the false notion that it is possible to express one's thoughts clearly enough that no assumptions need be made.

Do you still stand by this claim?

It is impossible for that argument to be true because it is impossible "that Joe doesn't assume anything and simply answers the question as posed without inferring anything not stated."

Do you understand that?

Do you or do you not stand by the above claims?

Do you still hold the following as the basis of your 'argument'?

You have an odd way of identifying a misquote. That quote was exactly your words... verbatim. Speaking of literal, do you still hold the following as the basis of your 'argument'?

The more relevant question is...

Given the original context, what do you think that "Are you the only one here?" means?

Do you or do you not feel obligated and/or responsible to justify your own claims? Do you figure that you do not owe myself and/or the audience(assuming anyone else has the wear-with-all to sift through this mess) an explanation of how you've arrived at the conclusions that you have?

Got one for why Joe's honest answer SHOULD BE "No, of course not" given the original context? I mean, come on...

We're now 20 something odd pages later, and you've yet to justify that claim.

Well at least we agree on something. I suspect we disagree on why. It is my considered opinion that you do not know what it is that you're talking about, therefore you cannot effectively argue for it. Rather, your thoughts are reduced to rhetoric, name-calling, avoiding relevant questions, and blatant refusal to justify the claims that you are making.

These are all clear signs of intellectual dishonesty. When one enters into a philosophical discussion/debate, one voluntarily enters into an obligation to justify their claims.

That is done with philosophical argument.