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

If you will notice BT has used some pretty fowl language and verbage, its just friendly jibes amoung friends.If I were you Panda I would seek some psychological help for that temper of yours. I can understand why you are by yourself, with that temperDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

That is how it works, good job, very funny. Wow youve been a busy little Peckerwood.Now if you would spend as much time in forming actual arguments, you might come off as an adequate debater.I guess from your past performances, your talents (if I may use that term), lie else whereSuch is life.I suppose you gave up on trying to show there were actually two instead of four concepts, rightEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Any chance you can provde a list on anyone else, or are you just dead set on personal revenge on meWhile I am just kidding in my responses, Im sure there are others much more verbal and abusive and they mean it, ummmm, like yourselfAny chance you would produce an extensive list of your sarcasms and insultslets see that listDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If you are any kind of man at all (if you are male), lets see the list of your insults, jibes and sarcasmAre you man enough to produce that list, I think you are a coward and will notLets see if you are a man or atleast consistantDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I was right, your a cowardThe next time you are at the shops, get a price on a backbone, if there reasonableDawn Bertot

Wow your not only a coward, your unethical to boot.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

[qs]Everyone,
Let's cut out the personal attacks. They detract from the arguments and only encourage further [i]ad hominum[/u]s.I continue to mark posts [cheer] if they address the topic in good debate manner, and [jeer] if they contain any attacks on others, whether they originate in the post or are in reply to attacks in other posts.\[/qs\]I agree. whoo weeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Im sorry RAZD, I am still not seeing anything but able and unable. Take for granted the last part of your statement here. "We can be sure that it was ABLE to respond before and the LACK of stimulus (unable) is what prevented it from responding."response is not the point, it was unable or able, before or after, in either part of your scenarioAm I missing something.?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please tell me if I am missing something and I thought you were the only one that understood from the opposition, but it appears you have missed the point as wellIm not loojing for options for response, but would any actions by either side be characterized by something different than Willing or AbleWhere or what on your chart am I missing somethingDawn Bertot

Anyway I am not sure who is still playing but my original example and illustration was in conjunction with and to help demonstrate the only two logical possibilites for the existence of anything.It is interesting to consider how words (able and willing) can so accurately reflect reality. Perhaps some one could think of other words, that are so restricted by reality.My first guess would be possible and impossible, with probable as a combination or limited to either one of themif anyone can think of such examples please present them, even if this discussion continues or those offered never get discussed.As BT suggested in another thread, this might be a pointless discussion, but then there is no requirement to have all discussions that have earth shattering consequesnces.its a nice break from that and its kinda fun to see how people view realityThanks for playingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Im not sure what you are going for in your Something Else, unless you can provide another word besides Able, to do what it needs to do with or without sunlightAre you suggesting a word other than able or unable THAT would desribe its actions?Im not being Evasive, I simply dont see what it is that you think the sunflower can or cannot do, with or without sunlight, or how that appliesSince you have implied it can do something without a lamp hitting it or direct sunlight, I would suggest it is ABLE to function, with stored energy or low levels of lightIs that what you are getting at, or am I still missing the point? Since you seem to be hinting at something besides able or unable, just tell me what that something isDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I didnt say it wasnt part of the process, I said it wont affect the outcome of the two choices Since i didnt do this I cant be dishonestI think you are confusing intellectual choices with simply reality. A tree is no longer able to stand upright and falls over when conditions of decay are sufficient enough to cause it to fall down. Then it is no longer able to complete THAT PART of its function, standing upright I admitted along time ago there were many other possibilites under the category of response, but it appears they wont change the outcome of either category, if the goal or task cannot be completed Great, so what word would you use to distinguish these other factors, that dont fall under or desribe willing or able?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, there are no other possibilites than the only two, for the existence of thingsThere are other possibilites for many other things and there are more types of responses.But no example of either possibilites or responses will fall outside of willing or ableI have no problem with his examples because they deal strickly with response and actions, not directly with able or willingIf you think i am wrong present any example he has provided and i will show it has only to do with ability, capaABILITY, InABILITY, WILLINGNESS OR UNWILLINGNESSDawn Bertot

Bertot writes;CS writes: Here is why CS. For all RAZDs attempts he has yet to provide a term that means something different than simply unable. Consider no 8 below.It does not matter how or where the unable is unable. Lets say that a person has a so-called compulsive inaction, as desribed by RAZD. Even if the influence is involuntary, it still renders the person UNABLE at that moment to accomplish a desired goal, even if the goal is an involuntary response and even if the involuntary response is not considered. It doesnt matter what happens to the person inside, it doesnt matter if he still has the ability in theoryInability or unableness doesnt have to do with just the person or the persons reactions, it is a characteristic of the physical world or reality, already in placeHe WONT ever provide a term that doesnt mean Unwilling or Unable not because, he is unwilling, but because he is unable, reality wont allow him to do that, therefore he is unable to provide itRAZD writes:This wont work eitherAgain he (the soldier) is unable, even if has the ABILITY, or he is ABLE himself. Because inability or unable doesnt have just to do with the person or his wishes, or his compulsions, voluntary or involuntary, it has to do with reality itself and the circumstances that surround itThe soldier is unable, no matter his wishes or abilites, but this does not desribe something different than unable, becuase Unable is a principle of reality no the personThis is where RAZD is making his mistakeHe (RAZD) will never provide you with a term that does not or will not fall under these two categories, because there is no term that can be used in any scenario, that cannot be described as willing or able.his second mistake is letting contrived definitions define reality. Actually, just the opposite is the case, reality defines terms, not the other way around. Ableness or unableness is defined and applied by reality, not a dictionary definitionreality and its physical attributes makes me able or unable to do anything. Reality allows any possibility in the physical world to be possible, impossible, able or unable. You cant overirde reality and the physical laws with human definitions of these termsRAZD is trying to make able or unable apply to a persons abilites or wishes exclusely to get a desired definition. But able and unable extend outside the person and thier wishes or thier programmed or unprogrammed compulsionsIn truth able and willingness are principles of reality written into that fabric. Rsepone, action, compulsion, whatever, decide which of these existing principles will surface or be actualized
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As I pointed out earlier apathy and ambivlence do not happen is a mila-second and they cannot be seperated from will itself. RAZD would need to demonstrate how one could have apathy without will in the first place, for apathy to be not willing.There is no need to resescribe another term to make it fit willing or able, because there is no other term for either of them, IMVMy vikings lost again and scored no points in the second half.Better get rid of McDone (Mcnabb) before its to lateDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.