#3 does not help you case either, because the listener must interpret the meaning of the question. That definition applies to a literal quote of another source, not to the meaning of an expression. If we are to use this definition then my interpretation is a literal one and your argument still rests upon nonsense.

An argument that holds that there is a literal interpretation possible to make sense of "no" being an honest answer to the question "Are you alone?" isn't worth further consideration if the proponent of that argument cannot come up with such a thing when repeatedly asked to do so.

That's not what I'd call having an honest conversation.

No it doesn't!

It would be dishonest if I was to give it because I know what the intended question was.
You are stuck in some sort of loop where you think "everyone" knows what that question means and adheres to your arbitrary rules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFXti_KRcLw

Watch that starting at 1:25 and pay attention to the 1:40 mark. Maybe that can shed some light on my position.


You said this is simple, start believing that statement.

You're abilty to distinguish honesty is of questionable quality.

That doesn't mean much coming from one who cannot support the position he's arguing for and does not reconcile the situation when shown the obvious incoherence of his own argument.

--

The video was funny, but it does not help your argument either. The kid is good at following the rules of language. He was told to say "Art Linkletter like your mad" and he did exactly as he was told. The kid's actions do not support your position, nor do they remove or correct the inconsistencies that I've pointed out without due attention.

Since you think I need to reconcile my claims...


How do I reconcile my claims? There is no need to reconcile them, you just need to stop defining everything for everyone...

#1 is your nonsensical claim, not mine. I agreed it was nonsense. I never agreed it was an accurate "interpretation". In fact I keep telling you to stop interpreting.
Leave #1 alone and don't add anything to it. "Are you alone?".


Here is your nonsensical "interpretation" broken down.
"Are you alone, or am I here too?"

Are you asking for an answer to one question or the other, both separately or both together? This is why you need to express yourself more clearly, because this makes you look bad.

As stated, it is 2 separate questions that Joe could choose either one to answer.
Are you alone? = No. (Jill is with him)
or
Am I here too? = Yes. (Jill is with him)
(do you see how silly that looks?)

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?

1 is the only way that 3 makes sense. If it takes nonsense to make sense of your claim, then your claim is nonsense.

OHHHHHHHHH YAAAAAA i think your guys will figure it out soon and 1 of you will be right

Or you're just severely confused...

Since the nonsense was introduced by you, the nonsensical claim is yours.


Just give up man, you're digging another hole.

This is epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

You're lying to yourself. You claimed that "no" should be Joe's honest answer to Jill's question "Are you alone?" That claim depends upon a nonsensical interpretation of the question in order to hold good. IOW the only way that "no" should be Joe's honest answer(your claim, not Joe's) is if Jill meant to count her as well: "Are you alone, or am I here too?" You have admitted that that is not what the question means, but you haven't grasped that that interpretation is required in order to make sense of your claim about what Joe's honest answer should be.

You're either lying or confused.

More dishonesty.

If you do not like how I've made sense of your claim, then make sense of 3 yourself by putting forth a literal interpretation which supports 3 and follows from the definition you gave for "literal" that applies to the meaning of an expression.

lol, keep trying.

1. "Are you alone" means "Are you alone"

case closed...

If you do not believe that "Are you alone, or am I here too?" is what the claim means, but rather you do believe that the claim means "Are you alone, or are others present but unseen?" then how can you possibly believe that "no" should be Joe's honest answer?

You can't. Therefore you lied.

That is an utterly meaningless statement. It also contradicts you're earlier claims.

More dishonesty.

Which claim(s) does it contradict?


Your ability to distinguish dishonesty is nonexistent.

The meaning of the question "Are you alone?" is "Are you alone or are others, besides you and I, present but unseen?" That is what the question means, whether asked on the phone, or in person and you already agreed.

"Are you alone" means "Are you alone" is utterly meaningless. Do you understand whay that is the case?

Everyone lies

If you do not believe that "Are you alone, or am I here too?" is what the claim means, but rather you do believe that the claim means "Are you alone, or are others present but unseen?" then how can you possibly believe that "no" "should be" Joe's honest answer? I say you can't.

Your "should be" claim logically leads to nonsense. There is no forseeable way for it to be true without resorting to a nonsensical interpretation, which you yourself reject. You're rejecting what it would take to make your own claim true. Therefore you're rejecting your own claim. You're also coincidentally claiming that Joe's honest answer "should be" different than what your own honest answer would be, based upon what you know, what we all know, that the question means.

The honesty of an answer to a question is solely 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.

That being said, if no sensible alternative meaning to the question can be given, then what is the point of your argument because it contradicts your own openly expressed belief about what the question is asking for?

So it would seem. Some moreso than others.

If you can think of a sensible alternative meaning to the question "Are you alone" that would make your claim true, then and only then would your claim about what Joe's honest answer "should be" have any merit. As it stands, the claim has no merit whatsoever. Furthermore, if you cannot produce such a thing then there is no reason whatsoever to base a conclusion upon what Joe's honest answer "should be" upon the possibility that such an interpretation exists.