Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:50 AM
29 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, Faith, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,009 Year: 12,045/19,786 Month: 1,826/2,641 Week: 335/708 Day: 29/81 Hour: 9/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 76 of 211 (633020)
09-12-2011 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 11:02 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
I am not starting to see your position at all. You have been rambling on about willing and able in a conversation with yourself when it has never, ever had anything to do with my position. You and I have not, at any stage had a discussion about the problems with the words willing or 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

I am fully aware that the entire paragraph I have just written will not be clear enough for you.

Oh its very clear, it speaks volumes about you

The task, in your example was to respond

Look through any of my verbage and see if I said respond was the point of my example

Here are the two alternates I provided way back on [msg=631041]. I have provided these examples on multiple occasions now.

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

In both of my examples, the 2nd craft was both willing and able to respond. Spock said that the only two options were that the 2nd craft was either unwilling or unable to respond. I have provided two examples where the 2nd craft is both willing and able to respond. Your example is refuted, twice.

Yes but before this he said there are only two logical possibilites, thats the point of the discussion

I have never had any issue with the words willing or able. I believe that I have told you this enough times now that every time you bring it up I am justified in calling you a fucking moron. You have not stated that you have a learning disbility to this is the only option left

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 it

RAZD has abaandoned it because he knows he has no solution

I did pay attention. I paid attention enough to realise that there are not only two logical possilities. I have provided another two. Making at least 4 possibilites. You provided an example. I have refuted your example. If your example did not mean what you actually wanted it to mean that is your error, not mine.

You have given two examples of something that doesnt directly apply t the point at hand

Lets go with your examples. Please show how what they did does not mean or fall under willing or able

Sprock 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 capability

No other terms can be provided that dont mean the samething

Anyway thanks for participating in what some might see as a pointless endeavor

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:02 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 77 of 211 (633022)
09-12-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Funnily enough. The conversation I have been having this entire time was in relation to respond and communicate.

You may have noticed by the sheer volume of references to the words "respond" and "communicate".

And the large number of times I have said that I am talking about response and communication.

And the times I have supplied you with the definitions of respond and communicate.

And the times that I have told you that I am not talking about willing and able.

All the times when I have directed you to focus on the words respond and communicate.

All the times when I have had to repeat myself over and over again saying that I am talking about response and communication and nothing else.

You know, all of those times (every, single fucking post) when I have said that I am talking about your issues with the words respond and communicate.'

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 respond

That should clue you in

And the times I have supplied you with the definitions of respond and communicate.

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 attention

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 11:08 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-12-2011 10:57 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2617 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 78 of 211 (633085)
09-12-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2011 2:00 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Hello dawn Berot,

This will be the last time I pint out the huge obvious error you are making with your example.

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 respond

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 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 attention

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.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 2:00 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by rueh, posted 09-12-2011 3:48 PM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 5:45 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
rueh
Member (Idle past 1857 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(3)
Message 79 of 211 (633121)
09-12-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Butterflytyrant
09-12-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
butterflytyrant writes:

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.

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.


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-12-2011 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:25 AM rueh has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 80 of 211 (633131)
09-12-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Butterflytyrant
09-12-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Now, lets try hard to look for the task in the sentence

Im not interested in the task in the sentence, I agree with that task in the sentence Im interested in the task of the logical conclusion that any response or no response, will involve something more than willing or able

It does not matter what the second ship did or did not do. It only matters that anything that they did do can not be described by any terms other than willing or able

provide a word, based on a what they did, that will not fall under willing or able

It does not matter what the enterprise did or did not do, whether they were right or wrong

Provide a word for any of thier actions or inaction that will be different than willing or able

it doesnt exist

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.

great now find a word that will be different than willing or able, that is described in any of the second ships actions

A 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 CONCEPTS

An action, (Response or communication) , is either able or unable. These two concepts and the reality of it decide whether the action is sucessful or unsucessful

if you think it is not, give me the alternate word

A communication is exacally the samething I desribed above, it is not something differentm it cannot be used as an alternate concept of reality

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.

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 mallethead

The 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 unwilling

Any actions on either side will fall under either category, thats his only point

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-12-2011 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:22 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 211 (633143)
09-12-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
09-11-2011 10:30 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
But I do think that the way Spock was talking, he would consider ambivalence to be unwillingness.

Curiously, Dawn Bertot said that it made them unable.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2011 10:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2011 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 211 (633145)
09-12-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Butterflytyrant
09-11-2011 10:33 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
I had no real intention of pursuing this as far as I have.

Funny how that works, huh?

My original comment refuting Dawn Bertots claim was a few lines. He provided a couple of lines from a Star Trek episode. I refuted the claim he made based on those few lines. I had no real intention of pursuing this as far as I have. It is quite possible that Spock meant something other than what he said. However, this was not provided in the example. I also have not seen or have forgotten the episode in question. I was provided with a few lines and a claim based upon those few lines. I refuted the example given.

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)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-11-2011 10:33 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:14 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2617 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 83 of 211 (633225)
09-13-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
09-12-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Hey Catholic Scientist,

Okay, that's fine, but you refuted the wrong claim.

Wrong claim? I saw an example. There were obvious flaws to that example. I have refuted 'a' claim.

With the semantic ambiguity behind us, lets move on to the actual 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'.

You didn't get said thing done, because you either couldn't or you wouldn't... is there room for any other position(s)?

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 could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2011 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 10:13 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2617 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 84 of 211 (633226)
09-13-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2011 5:45 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
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.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2011 5:45 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 5:03 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2617 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 85 of 211 (633227)
09-13-2011 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by rueh
09-12-2011 3:48 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by rueh, posted 09-12-2011 3:48 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by rueh, posted 09-13-2011 2:31 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 5:20 PM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 86 of 211 (633246)
09-13-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 8:14 AM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Wrong claim? I saw an example. There were obvious flaws to that example. I have refuted 'a' claim.

You refuted a dumbed-down version of a popular claim. And consider your source

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'.

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.

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?

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?

To your example.

Yes, let's. This could be a worthy discussion.

There is a grey area around couldnt if I was not aware I needed to get something done. It may depend on the task.

How so? What do you mean? Can you provide an example?

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.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 8:14 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2617 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 87 of 211 (633268)
09-13-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Hello Catholic Scientist,

my comment - 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.

your reply - Oh, so you agree that Spock was right if he meant communicate?

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.

Can you think of another position between/around unwilling and unable that would refute his claim?

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 25

The words willing and able are not the words that you are having trouble with. You seem to believe that the task of responding has to achieve successful communication in order to be completed.

From a message to Rueh Message 29

The task is response, not communicate. The craft being unable to make it in a form the Enterprise recognises means they are unable to communicate, not unable to reply. Response and communicate are two different things with two different requirements.

From Message 35 to DB.

here, once again are the definitions of response and communicate. Please tell me which parts of these definitions you cannot understand -

Here is the definition of response-

response - the act of responding; reply or reaction

here is the definition of communicate -

Communicate - To have an interchange, as of ideas.
Communicate - To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood.

Now, look at the definition of response. Please pay close attention to any parts of the definition of response that requires receiving the response. You will notice that there is no requirement for the second party to receive the response for the task of responding to be complete.

From Message 36 to DB.

I have no problem with the terms willing and able. I never have. I have continually said that the problem you have is with the definition of respond and communicate. I have mentioned this many times now. New definitions of willing or able are not required. Your understanding of the definition of respond and communicate are required.

From Message 61 to DB

What I am refuting is that the two options, unable to respond and unwilling to respond, are not the only two options. The key word I am focusing on to refute this is the word respond. The task that Spock is referring to is response. In this example, Spock says that the craft is either unable to respond, or unwilling to respond. The task is response.

From Message 61 to DB

In all of my posts, I have repeatedly told you that I have no problem with the words willing or able. Changeing those words to any other word that means willing or able will make no difference whatsoever to the reason I am refuting your original point. The word that is important is repond. The actual task that is being examined is response. You can select any words you want that mean willing and able and change the around if you want. Any words you like and it will make not one iota of difference to my arguement. At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.

From Message 61 to DB

Just to make sure you are clear on my position with regards to the use of the words willing and able. At no stage have I ever had any complaint or comment with regards to the usage of these two words - willing, able. I have no idea why you keep trying to tell me that I need to come up with different versions of these words or focus on these words as they have no relevance to my arguement. They never have. At all. Ever.

From Message 67 to DB

At no stage have I ever claimed that there was any issue with the words willing and able. There is no problem for us to agree or disagree upon with these two words. In our discussion, that issue has been created by you, discussed by you and now apparently solved by you.

From Message 74 to DB

I am not starting to see what you are saying. I have said, from the beginning, that your continual requests for alternate words to willing and able have been irrelevant to the way I have refuted your example. I am not starting to see your position at all. You have been rambling on about willing and able in a conversation with yourself when it has never, ever had anything to do with my position. You and I have not, at any stage had a discussion about the problems with the words willing or able. I have not discussed any issues with those two words with you at any pint. You have been discussing it with yourself. I have no position on those two words. I am not starting to see your side of that discussion because I am in no way involved in any discussion with you regarding problems with the words willing or able. At no stage in any future responses will it be necessary for you to discuss any problem you perceive with the defintions of willing or able, or requests for alternate words. As this issue has absolutely nothing to do with my dispute of your example, it has never and will never be an issue we need to discuss.

From Message 74 to DB

I have never had any issue with the words willing or able. I believe that I have told you this enough times now that every time you bring it up I am justified in calling you a fucking moron. You have not stated that you have a learning disbility to this is the only option left.

From Message 75 to DB

Funnily enough. The conversation I have been having this entire time was in relation to respond and communicate.

You may have noticed by the sheer volume of references to the words "respond" and "communicate".

And the large number of times I have said that I am talking about response and communication.

And the times I have supplied you with the definitions of respond and communicate.

And the times that I have told you that I am not talking about willing and able.

All the times when I have directed you to focus on the words respond and communicate.

All the times when I have had to repeat myself over and over again saying that I am talking about response and communication and nothing else.

You know, all of those times (every, single fucking post) when I have said that I am talking about your issues with the words respond and communicate.

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?

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?

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.

your example - You didn't get said thing done, because you either couldn't or you wouldn't... is there room for any other position(s)?

my reply - There is a grey area around couldnt if I was not aware I needed to get something done. It may depend on the task.

your reply - How so? What do you mean? Can you provide an example?

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 typos

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 88 of 211 (633270)
09-13-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Butterflytyrant
09-13-2011 11:30 AM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Of course. The example was wrong for the reasons I pointed out. I have never said anything different to this.

I know, and you're keeping it up despite my attempt to move the discussion forward.

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.

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 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

I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks...

So yes, I agree that if Spock had said communicate, the example would be fine. I told you this six days ago.

Yeah, I get that. But you seem like you still have some disagreement with my position.

I dont know how to spell this out any clearer other than to just keep repeating it over and over again.

A simple "No." would have sufficed.

The problem with the example is the word respond. There is no need to alter, adjust, transform, refine, convert or correct either of those two words. 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?

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.

your example - You didn't get said thing done, because you either couldn't or you wouldn't... is there room for any other position(s)?

my reply - There is a grey area around couldnt if I was not aware I needed to get something done. It may depend on the task.

your reply - How so? What do you mean? Can you provide an example?

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.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:30 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-13-2011 11:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 89 of 211 (633289)
09-13-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2011 10:39 PM


... haven't had the time yet to respond due to other higher priorities
Hi Dawn Bertot

Spocks point of view is unimportant, whether they responded or not is unimportant

Whether or not they respond is the issue.

Message 76: RAZD has abaandoned it because he knows he has no solution

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.

The first part of the statement is what needs to be addressed, because is more important than the second. The second part is relatively unimportant, unless one wishes a seperate conversation
concering, respon and commuincate, etc

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:

I am fine with these definitions, all I need is another word ...

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).

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : [time] gives the time? fascinating.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 10:39 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 4:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 90 of 211 (633300)
09-13-2011 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2011 3:53 PM


Re: Stage 3: the question of alternatives - 2nd the other dimensions\words
Hi again Dawn Bertot

However I find it very hard to believe that you cannot translate all of this symbolic jargon into simple English, consisting of a few lines of your point

What I am more interested in you doing is translating this symbolic jargon into a simple word or concept that is different than willing or able

I 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).

Thus far you have tried ambivalent, apathy and programming, all of which have failed because they have nothing drectly to do with willing or able. While the are involved, they dont change the limited possibilites

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.

... because they have nothing drectly to do with willing or able....

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.

Which means it will be either able or unable to complete its programming, correct. By the sunflower responding, I dont mean it is choosing to, I simply mean it will or will not be Able to perform its function

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.

Stimulus: present not present
Program: if present then respond if not present then do not respond
Able Able and programed to respond Able and programed to not respond
Unable Unable and programed to respond Unable and programed to not respond

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.

Which means it will be either able or unable to complete its programming,

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:

if the proper stimulus is present, then respond
else (if the proper stimulus is not present then) do not respond

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


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2011 3:53 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2011 12:42 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019