Another pointless argument.

In order to say that Joe has honestly answered "No" to Jill's question "Are you alone?" you - meaning PeterPan - must change the well known meaning of an uncontentious question in such a way as to make the question nonsensical.

I find the topic to still be of interest, poor argument notwithstanding and name-calling aside. The act of lying is a very curious matter. I mean, it seems that most folk know what it is, and can be confident when they think/believe that it is being done. However, proving that that is the case is another matter altogether.

Earlier you and I agreed upon what the criterion of lying is. I mean, when one is stating something other than what they believe - as if they believe it - then one lying. Lying is opposed to honesty. Honesty is about saying what one believes. Thus, one cannot be both offering honest testimony and lying at the same time.

The difficulty with rendering judgment based upon such an account is in our knowing what it is that another believes. I mean, in order to know that another is lying, we must know that they are making claims that they do not believe - which requires being privy to another's belief.

I think that that can be known well enough to levy such judgment, but it requires assuming honest testimony to begin with.

If Joe asserts "X" but believes not "X", then Joe is lying regardless of whether or not "X" is true. If Joe asserts "Y" based upon "X" while not believing "X", then Joe is either lying or confused.

lol, utterly meaningless? waffling? nonsensical and pointless?

You don't get it, maybe monkey can help you by explaining it in simpler terms but I'll try anyways.

You think "everyone" knows the meaning of the question as testified by your own words. I say they don't. You base your judgement of someone else's honesty on assumptions of assumptions. You assume that the other party makes an assumption.

If you can't allow for the possibility of either a yes or a no being an honest answer then aren't you dictating Joe's beliefs? (simultaneously was mis-used by myself earlier)(what I meant was same situation with the same question asked at the same time but of course only one answer)

You would call an answer of "no" dishonest just because Joe may not have inferred your intended meaning. Do you think everyone assumes the same things that you do?

I suggest you goto youtube and watch some "Kids Say the Darndest Things"

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Kids+Say+The+Darndest+Things&oq=Kids+Say+The+Darndest+Things

Agreed as long as you don't try to dictate what Joe believes...

Peter said to Bushidobillyclub




inflammatory, antagonistic.

Nobody is dictating what Joe believes. Joe does not exist. He is hypothetical.

The statement said IF Joe asserts Y based upon X while not believing X then Joe is either lying or confused.

Do you understand "IF?"

Again, Joe is hypothetical. It is a hypothetical situation to demonstrate a point.

Joe does not actually exist.

If someone other than Joe asserts what Joe believes and how he interprets things, that person is dictating what Joe believes.

Pay attention here. People are dictating what is supposed to be assumed and what is not supposed to be assumed.

I find it quite ironic...

Don't forget truthful, opinionated...

How far into absurdity are you willing to go in order to prove that you're giving an absurd argument? I've already shown how it takes an utterly pointless interpretation of the question in order to support your argument. The interesting thing is that you know, and have concurred, that such an interpretation is nonsensical.





Not at all. I'm assuming that Joe understands the meaning of an uncontentious question just like you and I do. I've also argued about the nonsense of the alternative, and you agreed. You have not reconciled that self-contradiction yet. An honest answer of "No." would depend upon the listener knowing that the speaker meant "Are you alone, or am I here too?"

So, for "No." to be an honest answer, Joe must first know that Jill is changing the well known meaning of an uncontentious question and asking a rather stupid and pointless one that isn't worth answering to begin with.





What other meaning makes sense Pan? What else could the question possibly mean?

Then I will take that as a no, you don't know what "IF" means.

You also don't understand what "hypothetical" means.

You probably think Joe exists.

arrogant and opinionated

The absurdity is the fact that you keep trying to dictate how and what people are to think.

Your interpretation was nonsensical. Think about this statement. "Are you alone, or am I here too?"

You're asking two questions here that will contradict if Joe takes the literal meaning of "Are you alone?" or it sets up an answer of yes which dictates his answer for "Are you alone?"

I am supporting NO interpretation. Stop inferring and assuming and just read what I write. Is that to hard to ask in an honest conversation?





Here you are dictating what Joe must believe.




It doesn't matter what I think it means. What matters is what Joe thinks it means and his response to it. That's where you are having trouble, you need Joe to believe the same things you do to decide if he's lying or not.

Joe dictates his own belief through what he says.

Let "Y" be that "No" is an honest way to answer the question "Are you alone?"

Let "X" be that the question "Are you alone?" means "Are you alone, or am I here too?"



QED

Joe doesn't believe X, you set him up for failure, so you fail...

"X" is the only interpretation under which "Y" can be true.

I'm more than willing to hear another possible interpretation that makes sense...

Ya got one? "Y" is the position you're holding.

No interpretation. Let Joe decide what Joe believes.

I'm not asking about Joe. I'm asking you to support the argument that you're making with something substantial. You're arguing for "Y". Upon what basis do you hold that that is true?

What would it take in order for "No." to be an honest answer to the question "Are you alone?"

Joe to believe "no" was the correct answer.

And what would it take for "No" to be the correct answer?