Again, I agree with the overall sentiment of everyone walking their own path, so to speak. However, I think that there is a crucial distinction being neglected here. That being between belief and truth. Definitions can be wrong, especially concerning things that we can only become more aware of... truth being one of those things. However, that is tangential to the focus at hand. A wonderful topic in it's own right.

I prefer not to answer until you define "literal" correctly. <<< an honest answer...

First of all, the question is dishonest unless you believe that I think that you're always being dishonest. You cannot possibly believe that, because we have conversations, and during conversation there is a tremendous amount of assumed honesty that must take place in order to even have one.

Wait a friggin minute here.

Are you actually taking a literal meaning instead of infering my intended meaning?

I'm applying the same criterion that I have been throughout this discussion Pan. You've just not picked up on it yet. The question you asked is fallacious. You assume in the question itself that the presupposition that leads to the question is true. The presupposition is that I always think that your being dishonest. The question presupposes that that is true. It is akin to asking a man if he is still beating his wife, or asking a man if he is still a pedophile.

Follow me here?

The question itself is fallacious.

First of all, the definition of "literal" makes no difference to the criterion set out here. Secondly, a correct answer is not necessarily an honest one. Thirdly, you're squirming. Answer the question, it gets directly to the heart of the matter.

Oh, but it's common practice to infer what the intended meaning is, right? You argued for that earlier and now you don't want to adhere to your own rules?

Everyone knows that when someone says "always", they don't literally mean always, they mean a lot. To deny that it is a common phrase is not something a person does in an honest discussion.


Follow me here?

No, you changed to subject to avoid dealing with your obvious mistake. Deal with that first.

Most folk do not contest the meaning of expressions the way that you've done here Pan. This pointlessness is a product of your own making, not mine. All meaning is inferred. I don't have these sorts of problems with very many people. Those two statements are supported by fact. So, rather than petty bickering about irrelevant things, I suggest that we move on like intellectually honest folk do.

I've offered a criterion and asked if you agree to it.

The subject was never the definition of "literal". The subject is honest testimony. The definition of "literal" is entailed by the criterion I've set forth. IOW, that criterion has the explanatory power to exhaust the irrelevant tangential aspect of "literal interpretation".

This flipping the script doesn't work Pan, nor do I find it very clever. There are cases where there is no good reason to talk about interpretation and there are others in which there is clearly good reason. The odd thing here is that you agreed with what the question means during everyday discourse, but you're still arguing for a definition which conflicts with that. It is a pointless argument. Regarding the attempt at cleverness...

As opposed to the question "Are you alone?" which - as has been shown - has no other sensible interpretation, people quite often say "always" and mean in every case.

Bachelors are always unmarried men.

Your objection here isn't a good one.

I think that this...

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.

...is adequate for and if met can be used in order to show when dishonest testimony is at hand. There's the answer to your question concerning my belief about dishonesty Pan, which includes yours if it exists. You don't really want to go there though do you? I mean I think it would be against the rules to deliberately set out prove that you - personally - have given dishonest testimony. That can be inferred by the reader if given the right tools. It's not my kuleana.

No, no, I want to see it. I bet you can't do it without outright lying.

1. Do you still believe that "no" should be Joe's honest answer?

Do you believe that bushido and I have never met an honest person?

Yes I do. As the question was posed earlier without your definition of literal or demanded inference on Joe's part.

Default stance is honesty...

First interpretation of the expression is literal...


It's the only answer he can be 100% certain of, the rest is speculation untill Jill decides if she's going to continue playing the language game or not.


Jill should have been more clear in her communication.

Yes I do believe that neither of you have met an honest person.


*Edit, misread the first time

Is this gunna be you asking all kinds of questions I've already answered in a lame attempt to trip me up?


Cause this is really getting funny now! (I honestly am grinning right now)

Earlier you claimed the following...



Do you believe that that is true?

Do you believe that you're not demanding inference upon Joe's part, or specifying a nonsensical meaning upon Jill's?