Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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 replied

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

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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 replied

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

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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 replied

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

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 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 replied

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

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 117 of 211 (633416)
09-13-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2011 12:01 PM


Re: Wasn't Spock right?
Hello Catholic Scientist,
I know, and you're keeping it up despite my attempt to move the discussion forward.
I dont disagree with the point that DB was making. I am not sure what will be achieved by moving the discussion forward. I agree with DBs point. My only objective was to point out that the example he used does not actually support his point.
What are we going to discuss if I have never had any problem with the point that DB was making?
I agree with the point, the example does not support the point. Whats to discuss?
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?
The original example that was provided did not include additional context. Also, background knowledge of a character from a fictional TV show should not be pivotal in understanding an example. From the sentences provided in the example, there is no reason to assume that Spock actually meant or implied communicate when he said response. The assumption I made is that DB wants the example he has used to support his point. No context was supplied with the example. An example was given that failed to support DB's point.
From the example given by DB, why would you assume that Spock actually meant communicate, when he said response? Would it not make sense to assume that he meant to use the word he used? Why, from the example provided by BT would you assume the capability of the responder? Adding assumptions to an example only opens the example up to further error. If you just accept the example as supplied, then it is flawed.
I replied to that and then you posted a bunch of pictures of dorks...
I was illustrating that many people can interpret Star Trek in different ways depending on their knowledge of Star Trek. I tried to find pictures of the people most likely to have an intimate knowledge of Star Trek. Star Trek 'professionals' if you will.
Yeah, I get that. But you seem like you still have some disagreement with my position.
I dont think we disagree on the point that DB was actually making. If your position is the same as hers, then we have no disagreement. I am interested in RAZD's posts because they may disagree with it though. The only disagreement I have ever had is with the example. The use of the word respond instead of the word communicate does not support his example. Thats it, it is the only problem I have put forward.
A simple "No." would have sufficed.
I apologise for the overkill. I have been dealing with the same statement, repeatedly with DB for ages now. Regardless of the amount of times I repeat the exact same thing, he just keeps going back to it.
Its the topic of the thread, I've taken a position against the OP, you seem to be disgreeing with me.
The discussion started on another thread. I was one half of the discussion. I only involved myself in this thread to distance myself from the idea that I had a problem with the words willing and able and to repeat that the only issue I ever had was with the use of response in the example provided by DB. I dont really have a position for or against the OP. I disagree with DBs example for a different reason to RAZD (potentially anyway, he has not yet finished).
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.
This is the grey area. It depends on time. At the time that the bus was arriving, I would have been able to catch the bus. I could have caught the bus. At the time, I would have caught the bus if I was aware that I was required to. At the time I was willing. I was prepared or ready to act gladly. I had no reason to act but that does not mean I was unwilling to act.
Willing :
1. Disposed or inclined; prepared: I am willing to overlook your mistakes.
2. Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliant:
See what I mean?
Yes, I do see what you mean. I agree with your position because I understand what you are getting at. I do think that a clearer example could be used. Wouldnt and couldnt are problemematic. I would have caught the bus. I could have caught the bus. I did not catch the bus. But that does not mean I would not or could not at the time.
The example first proposed by DB with the word respond changed to communicate is very specific and will illustrate your 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 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-14-2011 11:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024