Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |

stupid me and I thought it was I that had started this discussion. Im glad you cleared up what I thought I meant and what I thought I was doing. Excuse me for not recognizing your preconcieved misconception Oh its very clear, it speaks volumes about you Look through any of my verbage and see if I said respond was the point of my example Your examples might be valid if the task or my point was did they respond, its not. Since both of these examples do not explain another concept besides the two , they are invalid Yes but before this he said there are only two logical possibilites, thats the point of the discussion I got a belly laugh from this statement. It is so funny because your like the guy standing right in front of something and not seeing itRAZD has abaandoned it because he knows he has no solution You have given two examples of something that doesnt directly apply t the point at handLets go with your examples. Please show how what they did does not mean or fall under willing or ableSprock said there are ONLY two logical possibilites, willing and able. Those are the focus of the logical limitations, not response. there are an inumerable types of responses, but they are limited by willingness and capabilityNo other terms can be provided that dont mean the samethingAnyway thanks for participating in what some might see as a pointless endeavorDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Have one of the grammarians here at the site break down Spook's statement and see what the focus of "two logical possibilites " are, Willing and Able, or respondThat should clue you in I tried to explain many times that these two items are what decide if it will be Willing or Able, there not something seperate, as alternatives to Willing and Able. You seemed to pay no attentionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hello dawn Berot,This will be the last time I pint out the huge obvious error you are making with your example. I can break the sentences down for you (again).this is your example in full from Message 306

quote:

---

Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond."

​

No matter the reason, it will fall sqaurely within those limited possibilites, or it will be a combination of both, but no more. Thats all existence will allow

---

The two possibilities provided in you example are:
1. They are unable to respond.
2. They are unwilling to respond.You can tell that those are the two possibilities because Spock says "Captain there are only two logical possibilites", then he follows that by providing two possibilities. Those possibilities again are "they are unable to respond" and "ther are unwilling to respond".If we look at the two possibilities that Spock provided.here they are again.The two possibilities provided in your example are:
1. They are unable to respond.
2. They are unwilling to respond.I will explain again why these are the two possibilites. You can tell that those are the two possibilities because Spock says "Captain there are only two logical possibilites", then he follows that by providing two possibilities. Those possibilities again are "they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond".Possibility number 1.They are unable to respond.Now, lets try hard to look for the task in this sentence. Where is the doing word? The verb? That is probably going too fast. I will break it down one word at a time.They - Third person plural personal pronoun. Not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.Are - Are is a plural, present tense conjugation of the verb be. This is also not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.Unable - This is an adjective. A describing word. It is describing something. This is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence. I know you will not accept this. This does not change the fact that unable is not a verb. Regardless of how much you want unable to be a verb, or how many times you say it is a verb, it wont ever be a verb. Accept it.To - In this sentence, to is an infinitive marker: Used with the base form of a verb to indicate that the verb is in the infinitive, in particular, in this example, expressing purpose or intention. Again, to is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.Respond - verb - Doing word. This is the word that indicates the task. Just in case you disagree with that, here is the the definition of verb -Verb - A word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.The subject of the phrase is who or what does the verb. In this case, the subject is 'they'. They are unable to respond.
The verb in this sentence is a plural verb. Respond. (he respondS = singular, they respond = plural) The subject verb agreement is fine.
Unable in this phrase is an adjective describing an ability in a specific past event. Unable is describing ability in the task of responding.Option one has now been deconstructed in full.Now onto option two -They are unwilling to respond.It is very similar to the first option.They - Third person plural personal pronoun. Not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.Are - Are is a plural, present tense conjugation of the verb be. This is also not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.Unwillimg - This is an adjective. A describing word. It is describing something. This is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence. I know you will not accept this. This does not change the fact that unable is not a verb. Regardless of how much you want unable to be a verb, or how many times you say it is a verb, it wont ever be a verb. Accept it.To - In this sentence, to is an infinitive marker: Used with the base form of a verb to indicate that the verb is in the infinitive, in particular, in this example, expressing purpose or intention. Again, to is not a verb. Not a doing word. This cannot be confused as the task of the sentence.Respond - verb - Doing word. This is the word that indicates the task. Just in case you disagree with that, here is the the definition of verb -Verb - A word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.The subject of the phrase is who or what does the verb. In this case, the subject is 'they'. They are unable to respond.
The verb in this sentence is a plural verb. Respond. (he respondS = singular, they respond = plural) The subject verb agreement is fine.
Unwilling in this phrase is an adjective describing desire, eagerness or preparedness in relation to a specific past event. Unwilling is describing desire, eagerness or preparedness in the task of responding.Option 2 has been deconstructed in full. I have deconstructed the sentences in full for you above. The deconstruction of the sentences proves your above comment wrong. Willing and able are adjectives, describing words. They do not decide anything in the sentences you have provided in your example. I know that you will disagree. Unfortunately, the rules of grammar are pretty clear here. You are wrong. accept it.Now, the point that I have been refuting since the beginning.Your example again -

quote:

---

Here is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond.

---

Spocks logical possibility one - "they are unable to respond".Spocks logical possibility two - "they are unwilling to respond"My logical possibility three - The second craft has responded, but the Enterprise has not detected this response.My logical possibility three - The second craft is not aware that was hailed in the first place so they send no response. The second ships communication equiptment is fully cabable of responding to the Enterprise. The crew love Spock and would talk to him any chance they got so they are willing.In my logical possibility three, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. It has completed the task of responding. Proving that it was willing and able. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling or unable to respond.In my logical possibility four, the second craft is both willing and able to respond. Thus refuting Spock (and your) claim that the only options are unwilling and unable to respond.It cant get any simpler than that.There are only so many times that I will illustrate your mistake.I have just reached that limit. You are wrong. Accept it.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

When I first thought about this I believed that the second ships responses would only fall under two catergories (unable, unwilling). After reviewing your posts and further thought, I see how the mistake in Spocks logic is the use of the verb respond. If he had instead choosen communicate, than he would have been correct. However in choosing respond it allows for additional possibilities that unable or unwilling do not cover.

great now find a word that will be different than willing or able, that is described in any of the second ships actionsA respose BT is either willing, able, or just willing and unable or unwilling but able, its not something different than the only two. Response IS AN ACTION THAT WILL BE DESCRIBED BY ONLY THOSE TWO CONCEPTSAn action, (Response or communication) , is either able or unable. These two concepts and the reality of it decide whether the action is sucessful or unsucessfulif you think it is not, give me the alternate wordA communication is exacally the samething I desribed above, it is not something differentm it cannot be used as an alternate concept of reality Im not disagreeing as to whether Spock was right or wrong, ALTHOUGH HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Even if he did not know they had responded. His point was not that they had not made an attempt, his point was that the only two logical possibilites was limiting them from recieving that attempted response, you malletheadThe options are not unwilling or unable to respond, you idiot, even though he worded it in that manner, its that something is making it unable to get to the ship, therefore unable and maybe unwillingAny actions on either side will fall under either category, thats his only pointEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I suppose there's a bit of an overlap; if you were so ambivalent that you just couldn't bring yourself to do it, then I could call that 'unable'. To me, ambivalence feels like a lack of will (as the cliche goes: where there's a will there's a way) rather than something that is prohibiting my ability.But at the end of the day, you didn't get it done. So you either couldn't or you wouldn't.

Funny how that works, huh? Okay, that's fine, but you refuted the wrong claim. With the semantic ambiguity behind us, lets move on to the actual claim,You didn't get said thing done, because you either couldn't or you wouldn't... is there room for any other position(s)?

Hey Catholic Scientist, Wrong claim? I saw an example. There were obvious flaws to that example. I have refuted 'a' claim. There is no ambiguity. I have deconstructed the sentences. It is not a complicated group of phrases. I am not translating linear B. The statements were made. The statements were wrong. The statements were refuted.Actual claim? If the example was solid, there would be no actual claim and a seperate second claim. There would just be 'the claim'. The example is pretty broad. It is also different to the original example that was supplied. If this is what DB actually wanted to say, then he should have provided this example. As he did not provide this example, I dont really see why we are discussing it. All you need to do to make DBs arguement sound is change the word respond to communicate. Then it would actually illustrate DBs point. As this is not what the example says, it does not illustrate his point.If someone uses and example that is obviously flawed, would it be better to just let them continue making the mistake. Or is it better to attempt to show them how with a single word change, their example makes sense?To your example.There is a grey area around couldnt if I was not aware I needed to get something done. It may depend on the task. But this example is far and away better than the one DB used.All his example requires is the change of the word respond to communicate and it is sound. As it is, it fails to illustrate his point.

I had one of my friends who is a high school English teacher use this as a discussion with her class.She put it up on the board and asked the class to discuss it.After a brief discussion, 27 year nine children, all 13 years old could see the error in the logic of the sentence.Your error.Some even made suggestions on how to improve on your example.Would it help if I got some children to help you understand the mistake you are making?If children can get it, you should be able to as well.

Hello Rueh,It is not a complicated issue is it.I have been saying that same thing for a fair while now.But DB is a little hard to explain basic word usage to.I hope if he reads your post, perhaps the wording you have used may help it sink in.Cheers,BT

You refuted a dumbed-down version of a popular claim. And consider your source It came from a scene in a movie... That adds restrictions, context, and ambiguity. There's a much more interesting discussion in the claim itself, than in the meanings of the words used in the claim. That depends on why you're debating:

quote:

---

Honest Debate: how do you read?
So do you read for understanding (as best you can)?
Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?

---

Yes, let's. This could be a worthy discussion. How so? What do you mean? Can you provide an example? Oh, so you agree that Spock was right if he meant communicate? Can you think of another position between/around unwilling and unable that would refute his claim?

Hello Catholic Scientist, Of course. The example was wrong for the reasons I pointed out. I have never said anything different to this. This whole debacle started because I made this exact point.All I did was point out that the words used in the example did not support DB's claim. They do not.Spock would have been right, and DB would have been right, if the word communicate was used instead of respond. That is what I have been telling DB this whole time.I have no issue with the example, or with DB's actual point. I have been pointing out that the example is flawed and have been pointing out how it can be fixed.I have already told you this. This is from a reply I sent to you and you have already replied to so I can only assume that you have read it. Back in Message 17

quote:

---

My point originally was that the two options Spock gave were not the only options. If Spock had used the word 'communicate', then the example would be correct. However, he used the word response, which means the example was not limited to the two options given.

---

So yes, I agree that if Spock had said communicate, the example would be fine. I told you this six days ago. You have got to be shitting me.Seriously?As I have said probable a dozen times now, at no stage have I ever had a problem with the usage of the words willing or able in the phrases. Can you tell me how from the below messages you think that my arguement has anything to do with the words willing or able.from to DB Message 25From a message to Rueh Message 29From Message 35 to DB. From Message 36 to DB. From Message 61 to DB From Message 61 to DB From Message 61 to DB From Message 67 to DB From Message 74 to DB From Message 74 to DB From Message 75 to DB I dont know how to spell this out any clearer other than to just keep repeating it over and over again.The problem with the example is the word respond. There is no need to alter, adjust, transform, refine, convert or correct either of the two words "willing" or "able". I do not need to come up with any other words other than willing or able.How, after all of those posts, is it possible that you think I have any issue with the words willing or able?Is there any clearer way I would have been able to illustrate that I am talking about the word respond (as opposed to communicate) and have no problem with the words willing or able.Since I have very, very clearly stated that I have no problem with the words willing or able in the sentence, why would there be any need at all for me to think of another position other than willing or able? DB provided an example that contradicted his point. It was a simple error with a simple solution. The only person who would benefit from me pointing this out is him. He would have been able to alter his example so that it actually supported his point in case he was going to use it in the future. I read his example. I understood his example. I saw a flaw in his example. I was pointing out the flaw for no other reason than to assist DB in making sense. Others here may benefit also if he uses examples that support what he means. I was not refuting his point. I was advising that there was a flaw in his example. If I provided and example in one of my posts that obvioulsy refuted the point I was trying to make, I would expect and appreciate it if someone pointed it out to me. This would prevent me from making myself look stupid by repeating an example that refutes my own point. If the task was to catch a bus. I did not catch the bus. I was standing at the bus stop and just watched it drive by. I "could have" caught the bus. I "would have" caught the bus. However, I did not know that I was supposed to catch the bus. Could have implies a discussion of ability.You would need to be specific about the example.Why not just use the example that DB put forward but change the word respond to communicate and I believe that the point you are making and DB is trying to make will be made. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : fucking typosEdited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I know, and you're keeping it up despite my attempt to move the discussion forward. And in light of the additional context I provided, don't you think that Spock use of the word 'reposnse' implied a meaning that is closer to "communicate" in that it assumes the responder's capability of getting the message to the Enterpirse because they weren't jammed? I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks... Yeah, I get that. But you seem like you still have some disagreement with my position. A simple "No." would have sufficed. Its the topic of the thread, I've taken a position against the OP, you seem to be disgreeing with me.But lets move on to the example. Well no, you wouldn't have caught the bus. If you would have, then you'd be on it, but you're not. I agree that you were capable, but you lacked the will to get on it and that's why you're not. You were unwilling.See what I mean?

Hi Dawn BertotWhether or not they respond is the issue. It always amuses me when people say things like this. Curiously I am busy with many projects and do not have time to hang on your every post and assertion, and then get into a fetid rush to respond. Amusingly,

• I am willing to respond
• I am able to respond
• but I haven't had the time yet to respond due to other factors impacting my life -- that are a higher priority.

This of course, is another possibility to explain the lack of response during the time when Spock et al were monitoring for a response ...... which you likely will disagree with (given past responses in this line), and you will try to reformulate my prioritizing of the various tasks in my life to claim that I am either unable or unwilling ... but that is a false answer, because you are trying to change the definitions of the words to fit your perception.I am also working on another way to show what I mean, so you may need to wait a while to have your requested simplification of the visual aids. No, the first part modifies the second part, they are the adjectives that modify the action verb, and thus you cannot separate them and talk about anything but the definitions of the words. This we have already done in Message 26 and your agreement with them in Message 30: Here we see that TIME is another word/element: do they have time to respond, or is their time needed for more critical tasks (like survival, perhaps).EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : [time] gives the time? fascinating.

Hi again Dawn BertotI am working on making it simpler, you will need to wait until I have the time to spend on it. This is NOT a high priority in my life: your failure to understand seems to be singularly yours, rather than a general condition (I have had no other complaints). All of which you have failed to refute except by assertion of your opinion. Curiously assertion of an opinion does not make it fact, nor is it capable of altering reality. Curiously, that is precisely the point: they have nothing to do with [able]ity or with [willing]ness, but they have everything to do with [respond]ing.Thank you for admitting that. No, Dawn Bertot, it doesn't mean that at all, it is still able to complete the programing whether it responds or not.The response is governed by an external stimulus: if the stimulus is present the sunflower completes it programing by responding - if it is [able] to respond -- AND if the stimulus is NOT present the sunflower STILL completes it programing by NOT responding - whether it is [able] to respond or not.This can be tested by taking a sunflower inside and seeing if it responds when it is deprived of external input -- sunlight -- and then turning on artificial lights that match sunlight and seeing if it responds. When it does respond to the artificial light then we can be sure that it was able to respond before and that the lack of stimulus is what prevented the response. Either way the program is executed, the [able]ity of the sunflower to respond is not impaired or affected by the sunflower completing its program, it is the presence or lack of presence of the external stimulus that affects whether the program executes a response or it executes a non-response. No, it affects what the result of executing the program is, and it has nothing to do with the [able]ity of the ship to respond.This is the program: Explain how the mere existence of this program affects the ability of the second ship to respond. In simple words or diagrams ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : program