100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,  Pan, you've had numerous offers to present your reasoning. The offer still stands. Present an argument for your last claim. Show us, how based upon what was given, Joe "could be" telling the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the literal interpretation of "there"? It's your argument, make it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 04/04/12 10:46 PM
|
|
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. Well, if one equates a hypothetical scenario to a lie, then hypotheticals wouldn't seem very useful. That is an odd way to define a lie, imo. Could be interesting to see what you would call not a lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ab,
I must wonder something. Do you figure that all stories are lies? If not what separates the ones that are lies from the ones that are not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that supposed to be an argument Pan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well honesty is the best policy, whether it is truth or lie honest person will judge according to his intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
|
|
