100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Peter_Pan69
|
|
|
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. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. Joe could be telling the truth... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. What's the literal interpretation of "there"? creative, I want your honest opinion of what I'm about to explain here... I will color-code key points as to your criteria, opinions, assumptions and context. green = the context as specified, I agree like always that I cannot change it. 
(I'm surprised you used my example...) The bolded green is your description of the interaction between Jill and Joe. It is this specifically that should determine Joe's honesty along with the understanding that he wasn't counting Jill. red = creative's opinions and assumptions, not specified in the context as revealed to us. His reasoning for determining dishonesty. blue = equal to one of my reasonings as to how using a "literal" interpretation for the ambiguous word "there" could equate to an honest answer of "yes"... Again, I don't wish to be accused of not playing by the rules, green is not under debate. Please do not change it later though. As revealed to "us" (the reading audience here), the exact details of Joe and Jill's interaction is severely lacking as to what "there" really means and what Jill actually said (bolded green). You never quoted Jill's exact words to us, instead you simply gave a generalization of the interaction. To us, you set the context of "there" to mean the room that Joe was in. Joe was in one room and Jill entered that room, thus setting the context of "there" to be that particular room. Common understanding of the implicature would be for us to assume that you actually meant that room. Unless of course, you wish to argue that I assumed wrong? You then openly object to Joe's answer of "yes" because it failed to meet your expectation of an answer of "no". You state your opinions of Joe's actions as "dishonest" and use words like obfuscate to imply dishonesty to us readers. This leads me to believe that you wish clarify what exactly the definition of "there" should be. This is why we need to define "there", do you agree? This also means that you need to clarify what Joe's understanding of your scenario entailed. So I end up with a conflicting view that can only be decided by your agreeing to what "there" could, or as I suspect, should mean. Definition of THERE 1: in or at that place <stand over there> —often used interjectionally 2: to or into that place : thither <went there after church> 3: at that point or stage <stop right there before you say something you'll regret> Examples of THERE Put the package there on the table. Go to your room and stay there. Turn there at the church. She was sitting there a minute ago. They have lived there for 30 years. When will you be there? I used to live near there. What do you see out there? If we leave now, we should get there by noon. I drove the kids there. I can imagine Joe interpreting "there" basically as follows and more ways if I want to speculate on definition 3 above. "There" could mean that specific spot in the room Joe was in. "There" could mean a corner of the room or group of furniture. "There" could mean that particular room. (as implied by you) "There" could mean the first floor of the house. (Joe wouldn't be lying if "the other room" was on a different floor, he'd be lying if not) "There" could mean the entire house. (this would make Joe dishonest if he answered "yes") In conclusion, seems like a whole waste of time, just state Joe's beliefs and call him a liar. Do you acknowledge that the scenario as presented was not clear and required assumptions again? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Thu 04/05/12 12:19 AM
|
|
You figure that by your offering your version of a literal interpretation of the term "there" that that constitutes warrant to conclude that Joe was 'telling the truth'? 
How's that work? Yes I do. It works by understanding what "there" means literally... You seem to not agree with my statement, why not? *edited to add: the possibility it was honest is my conclusion, NOT a definitive stance on lying... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<<<<< Here's the explanation for my current avatar for those who have asked or wondered: As appears in the OnlineInterlinear version: Exodus 3:13 http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf (goto main site and find the correct chapter if the link doesn't work) אֶהְיֶה = "I AM THAT I AM" OR "I SHALL BECOME WHO I AM BECOMING" And as is usually found for the name of God. יהוה = YHWH = God, the Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh Hebrew-English traslation to verify if desired: http://translation.babylon.com/hebrew/to-english/ YHWH spelled vertically instead of right-left י Yod (yode) ה He (hey) ו Vav (vahv) ה He (hey) I feel it's kinda unifying if you look at it this way. A world-wide "in the image of..." representation. I also like the alternative translation for the "Name" as revealed to Moses the first time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 04/04/12 11:31 PM
|
|
Well, then there's really no point in my continuing this with you. You are mistakenly calling a claim an argument. You apparently don't know the rules. I'm not patient enough to teach you. So, if wish for me to continue, google "logical argument" "philosophical argument" or something like that, get up to speed regarding what an argument looks like; what they consist in/of, and then come back and give one. My claim was that Joe could be telling the truth. The argument for that claim is that Joe could have interpretted "there" literally. Do I need to define "there" for you to understand this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 04/04/12 11:05 PM
|
|
Is that supposed to be an argument Pan? Explain how I'm wrong, I'm happy with my argument as stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not an argument. You need to show what it would take for your claim to be true, while not contradicting the scenario provided. All that it would it take for it to be "true" would be for Joe to interpret "there" literally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the literal interpretation of "there"?
It's your argument, make it. We are doomed to the same fate unless we can agree on what "there" means. I suspect that the literal definition of "there" will be a contentious matter so I would like to hear what your answer is before I continue in a senseless debate. Again, there's nothing to discuss yet. Make an argument. Joe could have heard what Jill asked literally and answered honestly "yes"... So now what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the literal interpretation of "there"?
It's your argument, make it. We are doomed to the same fate unless we can agree on what "there" means. I suspect that the literal definition of "there" will be a contentious matter so I would like to hear what your answer is before I continue in a senseless debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media...
This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. So don't read it AB. Or better yet, join in and add something new...
Something new... Why? You have a made up story (i.e. a LIE)... From which you want people to then extrapolate upon if one can tell a lie without knowing the truth. so then every post to that lie... is a lie. How then can I add anything of substance? I would be discussing a lie in such a way as to attempt to prove a lie. Makes no sense to me. LOL, love this too! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. Joe could be telling the truth... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. What's the literal interpretation of "there"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media... This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. I agree. I find it odd that while some look for ways to be certain another is lying, when I find ways to imagine that they're not lying, my reasoning is belittled... Oh well, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter you are simply being antagonistic when you accuse Creative of being dishonest. Anyone reading this thread might wonder why he even talks to you at all. It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds... So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. I'll address you both at once. You should both look at yourselves before you make these public claims about me. Why? We are not the least bit antagonistic. I don't understand why you think so. I wish you would just stop posting in this thread. You just don't go around calling people dishonest or a liar. That is antagonistic, not to mention rude. So tell creative what he did was antagonistic and rude... Fiction...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter you are simply being antagonistic when you accuse Creative of being dishonest. Anyone reading this thread might wonder why he even talks to you at all. It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds... So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. I'll address you both at once. You should both look at yourselves before you make these public claims about me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. Joe could be telling the truth... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Torgo 
Not Torgo 
Torgo 
Just wondering if that weird music plays whenever you walk? Anyways, the name... Never grow up... year of birth (1969) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of thread. Of course it is. Dishonest testimony had been shown to come from creative and he can't deny it anymore. Soooo, running away is the only option. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the point in wrestling with pig? In the end, you both get dirty, and the pig loves it. Pan, you've went for 20 something odd pages without offering a single argument for your claims which have been since shown to be highly suspect, at best and utter nonsense, at worst. I'm not interested. Gather your thoughts, and say something intelligible. Until then, and you can trust me on this... I'm through with wallowing in your self-imposed ignorance along with you. You lie (again). I've offered my argument way back at the beginning. The past 20 pages has been you acting childish trying to prove dishonesty on my part and me every now and then re-stating exactly what I said. 20 pages of you lying about what I wrote and said. Typical actually. You've proven yourself to be deceitful, scared and ignorant to basic language skills. It's not my fault you aren't bright enough to understand what "literal" means... Now slink away and pretend like you've proven something, because your imagination is the only place where you can make that claim. You make the rest of us 99.99th percentile ranked people look bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Tue 04/03/12 05:47 PM
|
|
Yeah, I think that the true colors have been shown clearly enough. Time to leave this thread for dead unless someone wants to posit another scenario in order to apply the criterion, or use the same one to posit different answers so that we can look at how the criterion works on those as well. Yes, there is a troll in here. Two actually. You forgot to count yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I'm still waiting on your proof that I have been dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that the true colors have been shown clearly enough. Time to leave this thread for dead unless someone wants to posit another scenario in order to apply the criterion, or use the same one to posit different answers so that we can look at how the criterion works on those as well. I offered a scenario, you chickened out. You refused to answer my question as posed to you. The "blame" if there is any is on you for failure to engage honestly. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
