100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ultimately, it's the scenario I attack. It lacks clarity for you to decide if Joe is lying, even with your added clarifications...
Well, my good man, that will need to be argued for in a much more acceptable manner than you've shown for the most part. I suspect that you're very capable, I can only hope that you put that potential to use. Examine my next post carefully and tell me what you think. 
Who are you conversing with? Whose opinion have you been attempting to refute? Who does all that if the opinion means nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aim here, following from bushido, is to attempt to set out a criterion which, when put to use(tested), we can know whether or not one is offering dishonest testimony. Dishonest testimony can come in several different forms. It is my contention that all of those boil down to a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own belief. The criterion I've proposed is as follows... 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 a hypothetical scenario in order to provide context. The scenario was originally posed as follows... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. So, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. It has been argued that that could be taken to mean different things. That is a valid consideration. So, I further clarified by positing that Joe believes that Jill is not asking him to count her; that the question, as posed, means Jill notwithstanding. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's different possible answers and put the criterion to the test in order to see where it leads us. Based upon the context as it's been set out and subsequently clarified, we can put the criterion to use and imagine all sorts of different answers that Joe could give. Because the goal of the exercise is to evaluate the adequacy of the aforementioned criterion, we must evaluate the honesty of Joe's possible answers based upon the interpretation of the question that Joe is using. Any questions or concerns at this point? I got a question.If you dictate Joe's beliefs, what is the point of the scenario? Without a clear scenario there is no basis to test the criterion. The hypothetical scenario is a context to which we apply the proposed criterion. As a result of what the criterion sets out regarding an honest answer to a question, we must know wht Joe believes that Jill is asking about. Now, that being said, any and all interpretations can be and should be tested with the criterion. However, each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate. In other words, that's how critical philosophy is done. How would knowing Joe's thoughts relate to reality? To judge honesty, there must first be doubt, no? If you know Joe's thoughts, there is no doubt. Your scenario is as nonsensical as your definition and example of "literal". It's POINTLESS! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, it's the scenario I attack. It lacks clarity for you to decide if Joe is lying, even with your added clarifications...
Well, my good man, that will need to be argued for in a much more acceptable manner than you've shown for the most part. I suspect that you're very capable, I can only hope that you put that potential to use. Examine my next post carefully and tell me what you think.
Who are you conversing with? Whose opinion have you been attempting to refute? Who does all that if the opinion means nothing?
It was to show your hypocritical statement which I'm sure you'll deny. Hilarious! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Imma gunna hab sum funnies at the expense of creative's "scenario"... I will change only one word... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Known to Joe, Mary is in the other room.
-- So, it is a given that Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. It has been argued that that could be taken to mean different things. So, I further clarified by positing that Joe believes that Jill is not asking him to count her. Joe gave Jill an answer of "Yes", did he lie? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How would knowing Joe's thoughts relate to reality?
There are situations in which we can know another's thoughts in reality. To judge honesty, there must first be doubt, no?
No. If you know Joe's thoughts, there is no doubt. Your scenario is as nonsensical as your definition and example of "literal".
It's POINTLESS! To quite the contrary, Pan, if we know Joe's thoughts we can apply the criterion. Without knowing Joe's thoughts we cannot. The aim is to put the criterion to the test. We do that by posing all of Joe's imaginable answers, and then using the criterion as the means for determining the value of honesty/dishonesty and see whether or not those determinations make sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, it's the scenario I attack. It lacks clarity for you to decide if Joe is lying, even with your added clarifications...
Well, my good man, that will need to be argued for in a much more acceptable manner than you've shown for the most part. I suspect that you're very capable, I can only hope that you put that potential to use. Examine my next post carefully and tell me what you think.
Who are you conversing with? Whose opinion have you been attempting to refute? Who does all that if the opinion means nothing?
It was to show your hypocritical statement which I'm sure you'll deny. Hilarious! So, you care enough to attempt to prove something about me personally? Why are you here Pan? Are you going to engage by discussing the subject matter at hand, or are you intent upon attacking your interlocutors character? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Imma gunna hab sum funnies at the expense of creative's "scenario"... I will change only one word...
Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Known to Joe, Mary is in the other room.
-- So, it is a given that Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. It has been argued that that could be taken to mean different things. So, I further clarified by positing that Joe believes that Jill is not asking him to count her. Joe gave Jill an answer of "Yes", did he lie? It would be a much more productive exercise if you would give my words the attention that is required in order to understand the argument being made. That's how honest conversation is done. We can posit other variables to the scenario after we've thoroughly examined the scenario in question. As I've already noted, the purpose is to test the proposed criterion... Without a clear scenario there is no basis to test the criterion. The hypothetical scenario is a context to which we apply the proposed criterion. As a result of what the criterion sets out regarding an honest answer to a question, we must know wht Joe believes that Jill is asking about. Now, that being said, any and all interpretations can be and should be tested with the criterion. However, each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, it's the scenario I attack. It lacks clarity for you to decide if Joe is lying, even with your added clarifications...
Well, my good man, that will need to be argued for in a much more acceptable manner than you've shown for the most part. I suspect that you're very capable, I can only hope that you put that potential to use. Examine my next post carefully and tell me what you think.
Who are you conversing with? Whose opinion have you been attempting to refute? Who does all that if the opinion means nothing?
It was to show your hypocritical statement which I'm sure you'll deny. Hilarious! So, you care enough to attempt to prove something about me personally? Why are you here Pan? Are you going to engage by discussing the subject matter at hand, or are you intent upon attacking your interlocutors character? Hilarious! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Imma gunna hab sum funnies at the expense of creative's "scenario"... I will change only one word...
Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Known to Joe, Mary is in the other room.
-- So, it is a given that Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. It has been argued that that could be taken to mean different things. So, I further clarified by positing that Joe believes that Jill is not asking him to count her. Joe gave Jill an answer of "Yes", did he lie? It would be a much more productive exercise if you would give my words the attention that is required in order to understand the argument being made. That's how honest conversation is done. We can posit other variables to the scenario after we've thoroughly examined the scenario in question. As I've already noted, the purpose is to test the proposed criterion... Without a clear scenario there is no basis to test the criterion. The hypothetical scenario is a context to which we apply the proposed criterion. As a result of what the criterion sets out regarding an honest answer to a question, we must know wht Joe believes that Jill is asking about. Now, that being said, any and all interpretations can be and should be tested with the criterion. However, each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all. You're being evasive. It's your context, your scenario, your criteria. If you wish to admit that it is not clear, then do so, but don't avoid using your own experiment because you claim it's not adequate enough. That just shows lack of confidence in yourself. I am happy with your clarity in this case, aren't you? Only one word was changed, what is your judgement of Joe's honesty? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're being ridiculous. There's no evasiveness in any of that. As is clearly stated...
Each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all. Do you understand why that is the case? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're being evasive. It's your context, your scenario, your criteria...
Only one word was changed... You need to stop with the personal remarks and begin discussing the topic at hand. The change belongs to you. As a result of that change, which happens to change one of the pivotal elements(Joe's knowledge), it is not my scenario. It is yours. I'd be more than glad to examine a scenario of your own making after we've finished with the context I've put forth. The goal is to assess the adequacy of the criterion, and as I've already stated, we must test it with all possible scenarios - one at a time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you going to follow the procedure that I've set forth for assessing the adequacy of the criterion, or do you still have some objections following from the earlier ones? I've already answered those objections, without further attention from you. So, if you wish to discuss those further... now is the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're being evasive. It's your context, your scenario, your criteria...
Only one word was changed... You need to stop with the personal remarks and begin discussing the topic at hand. The change belongs to you. As a result of that change, which happens to change one of the pivotal elements(Joe's knowledge), it is not my scenario. It is yours. I'd be more than glad to examine a scenario of your own making after we've finished with the context I've put forth. The goal is to assess the adequacy of the criterion, and as I've already stated, we must test it with all possible scenarios - one at a time. Why is it personal when I acknowledge you being evasive and it's not personal when you call me evasive? Double-standard? Sliding scale? Hypocritical? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it personal when I acknowledge you being evasive...
One cannot know a falsehood, and that includes your so-called 'acknowledgment'. I was not being evasive. Each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all. Do you understand why that is the case? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it personal when I acknowledge you being evasive...
One cannot know a falsehood, and that includes your so-called 'acknowledgment'. I was not being evasive. Each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all. Do you understand why that is the case? Do you realise that was NOT what you did earlier when you said "no" could not have been a possible answer? Do you change that claim now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Show me where I said that "no" could not have been a possible answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Show me where I said that "no" could not have been a possible answer. lol, sorry, you said an "honest" answer of "no" would depend on your nonsensical intepretation. Do you acknowledge this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If who is on first...
How honest would an assesment that home is the target of what? Where is I don't know? I dont know. but I am sure it could all be turned into an arguement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bear with me Pan, I'm formulating an appropriate response along with a subsequent explanation. I'll be done shortly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do I even care if Joe is honest?
Why would I ... His honesty has no bearing upon the life I live... It matters not if he is honest or dishonest. It only matters that I am. to me. |
|
|
|
|
