Words do not have precise meanings unless we put them in particular contexts.

Words do not have precise meanings unless we put them in particular contexts.

You have not successfully demonstrated the contexts which act as the constraints within which whose narrow focus my answers are supposed to fit into.

You have failed to provide proper context.

Therefore I cannot answer you yet in a way that you will find satisfactory.

==

I’ll be happy to go deeper into it but you appear to be stuck on the surface of the argument here.

But I’m patient. I can wait for you to catch up.

==

There was a Jehovah’s Witness today in front of our public library today. I don’t think she was supposed to be there. I had a cigarette nearby and could hear the conversation… such as it was.

She was bringing this guy through a series of logical yes/no questions so that he would reach an incontrovertible, undeniable conclusion.

This is what I’m seeing here. I also did not go too near her because conversion tactics like this are more awkward in person.

==

Relevance logic is far more powerful in any case. It utilizes Kripke semantics (usually called Kripke frames). It’s a far more flexible set of axioms with frame conditions than what you’re working with in any case.

=

I can wait. You’ve failed to present your question adequately for me to change my answer from “agnostic” into [x] and also failed at getting an answer that you find acceptable from me for the dubious believer question.

Allow me to give you a hint: If the question you’re asking isn’t working, it’s a bad question. Change the phrasing. It might help.

==

 

You can revert to calling this sophistry again, although that word gets a little tiresome. We’ve spoken before: you have an expanded vocabulary. It’s enjoyable in fact. I’d like to hear more of it in use in this conversation. Unless of course you’re tired of my “alice in wonderland games” (thankfully you only referenced that approximately three times), and can’t be bothered to waste your time with someone who [x, y, z].

x, y, z can refer to any number of standard responses in the 20 questions game. I am glad you did not resort to, “disingenuous” – nobody uses that word except in this 20 questions game.

=


I am also grateful you did not use the Fallacy card. That’s how I know you’re more intelligent than standard.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 + = nine

Leave a Reply