Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:32 AM
26 online now:
(26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 3 of 211 (632215)
09-06-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-06-2011 10:56 AM


Just to clarify...
Are you (kinda) asking if it would be logical for someone to answer both the following questions with a 'No':
Are you willing to do it?
Are you unwilling to do it?

Are you asking if there is a third state of 'willing'?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:56 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 11:25 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 24 of 211 (632491)
09-08-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot writes:

In other words, is it your position that there are four possible outcomes:

1.willing & able - reply made

2.not[willing] but able - reply not made = Spock's "unwilling"

3.willing but not[able] - reply not made = Spock's "unable"

4.not[willing] & not[able] - reply not made = both

Yes true, this is my position. Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites


Which 2 outcomes do you not consider possible?

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2011 11:35 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:54 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 37 of 211 (632650)
09-09-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2011 12:54 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot writes:

There[sic] all possible


Which is contradicted by:
Dawn Bertot writes:

Actually only two but I understand your meaning concerning the opposites

You specifically said "Actually only two" out of a list of four.
Which of the list of four are not included in your "Actually only two"?


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2011 12:54 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:38 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 38 of 211 (632652)
09-09-2011 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Butterflytyrant
09-09-2011 2:36 AM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Maybe it would help if you asked Dawn to supply his own definition of 'respond'?
From that you may be able to see why he insists on there being two parties to a response.

Although RADZ provided a definition of 'able', 'willing' and 'respond' in Message 26 , Dawn only acknowledged the definition of 'able' (and implied an acceptance of the definition of 'willing'.)

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-09-2011 2:36 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 12:40 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 49 of 211 (632859)
09-10-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 5:38 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot writes:

You kidding right, no one is really that simplistic. Ill let you use that massive brain power of yours to figure this one out


You can't even support your simplest statements, can you.
I asked what should have been a simple question and you are unable to answer it honestly.

You specifically said "Actually only two" out of a list of four.
Which of the list of four are not included in your "Actually only two"?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 5:38 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:52 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 51 of 211 (632864)
09-10-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 6:52 PM


Re: Stage 1: understanding Dawn Bertot's position
Dawn Bertot writes:

You do understand that Unwilling and Willing are essentially the samething, correct? unwilling is the opposite end of willing, just on the other end.


'Left' and 'right' are essentially the same thing? Well - I suggest you avoid using a road-map.

There is an easy way to see if 'unwilling' and 'willing' are the same: compare them.
If they mean the same thing: they are the same.

Is 'unwilling' a synonym for 'willing'? No.
Therefore they are not the same. QED.

Dawn Bertot writes:

If you wish to make them the something different in your mind, then so be it. but that is the only place they will be two different things


...and also in dictionaries and in common English usage.
They are only the same in your head.

Dawn Bertot writes:

The opposite side of an orange is still the same orange, correct, just on the opposite side


You are now leaving earth's orbit...

As Percy says - when you are having to explain the meaning of common everyday words, then it is time to abandon a discussion.
Good luck, RAZD - he's all yours.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 6:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 54 of 211 (632882)
09-10-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Stage 3: the questions of alternatives, 1st the zero point issue
[deleted by Panda]

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2011 10:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 102 of 211 (633349)
09-13-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Forget about the TV scenario, thats not the point, you simplistic knucklehead. Ha Ha, just kidding


Why don't you go fuck yourself. Ha Ha, just kidding.
No really - piss off you stupid wanker. Ha Ha, just kidding.
Seriously - go fist-fuck yourself. Ha Ha, just kidding.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 5:20 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:06 PM Panda has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:06 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 105 of 211 (633356)
09-13-2011 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

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 temper


Eh? What temper?
I was joking!

Didn't you see the bits where I said "Ha Ha, just kidding"?
It was just some friendly jibes between friends.
Wow - you need to get a sense of humour you retard - Ha Ha, just kidding.

I thought that was how it worked:

Dawn Bertot writes:

those Admin "freaks" (just kidding fellas)
So stick that where the sun dont shine, ha ha, just kidding
It doesnt surprise your source messed this up, since most everything else you teaches is goofy as well. Ha Ha Im just kidding on that remark
Jerk, Just kidding holmes.
the grumpy-ole, IAJ, just kidding
nerdarama, just kidding of course
Why you worthless sack of cr...... No Im just kidding
Ive tried my best to get along with that evil, no good for nothing. No Im just kidding, but she is hateful
its just that your a knothead, IM JUST KIDDING.
even Peg and their little group, ha ha (just kidding Peg)
Just kidding about the nerd part.
Look out Gulf War veterans we have a real hero on our hands here fellas [sarcasm] Just kidding CaveDiver
Then ofcourse there is "Yogart", the "everlasting know it all", or Cavediver, which ever is easier, ha ha. Just kidding CD, dont have a anurism.
What if I refered to you as "Euro-Trash", of course I am just kidding here Homie.
Remember when i discussed earlier your reasoning abilities not being that polished, Well? Just kidding of course.
You will get thehang of this debating thing, just kidding dude.
Sounds like this boy has a problem with queermo sexuals, yeah dont we all at some point especially that 'Peter Pan' Rrhain, Im just kidding
one of those fellows that ran around with a rock tied on the end of a stick that looked much like yourself, no doubt. Ha Ha just kidding
you grouchy ole bag of crap. just kidding

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : typo


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:06 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:21 PM Panda has responded
 Message 107 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:28 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 108 of 211 (633361)
09-13-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:21 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Wow youve been a busy little Peckerwood.


Not that busy: it only took 5 minutes to find a page of your insults.
You are frequently rude and insulting.
I think you use it to distract people from your ignorance - Ha Ha, just kidding.

Dawn Bertot writes:

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 where


Thanks for those.
I'll add them to the list.

I am sure your god is proud of you - Ha Ha, just kidding.
I am certain he isn't.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:21 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:34 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 110 of 211 (633369)
09-13-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

lets see the list of your insults, jibes and sarcasm


Just to be clear: that was not a list of all your insults, jibes and sarcasm.
That was a tiny sub-set of your insults, jibes and sarcasm.
I only listed the insults that had the word 'kidding' in them.

There is not enough time in the day to produce a complete list of your insults.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:34 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 7:31 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 113 of 211 (633383)
09-13-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 6:34 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

If you are any kind of man at all (if you are male), lets see the list of your insults, jibes and sarcasm


Ok.
Here it is:
Dawn Bertot writes:

I suppose the title of your thread and the irorny of your continual dwelling on the God question in this website and your life, is lost on a moron like yourself
If indeed God is a waste of time and space, only a ignorant moron would spend so much time talking about him.
So which are you a coward or a moron, moron?
Its not about me Moron.
No moron, I said he was a very real probabilty using any real rule of evidence, having never witnessing him
Only a tyrant and an arrogant moron would claim to have the only definition of real science, so why dont you stay out of thier buisness
Only a moron or someone void of any reasoning ability would make such an ignorant comment. which one are you?
Only a moron would suggest that Dawn needs to explain why order cannot arise through unintelligent processess.
there are no philosophical reasons, didnt you see stripes, moron
Now if you will QUIT PLAYING THE simplistic moron role and point out in a logical form why this is not valid
While all the time, moronically claiming that there is no need to know if matter is eternal to demonstrate the factual nature of evolution
No moron you cannot explain how the things of existence are here to begin with.
Just switch gears when you are talking to Jaywill and the myself, moron.
Hey wait a minute, moron I havent been in the mix for a day or so now
I guess just being British initially entitles you to be an arrogant pompous moron
Im sorry, did I fail to say before your an unobjective moron, if I did, let me say, your an unobjective moron.


Again - not a complete list.
Just a selection of insults using the word moron.

Happy now?
(If you aren't happy - I will gladly post more of your insults. There are so many!)

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 6:34 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 11:04 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 116 of 211 (633411)
09-13-2011 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
09-13-2011 11:04 PM


Re: Was "Spock" right?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Wow your not only a coward, your unethical to boot.


You want me to post more of your insults? Really??
Aren't you ashamed of your past behaviour?

If you ask nicely I'll post another list tomorrow.
Tomorrow's word will be 'coward' - I bet there are dozens of your insults that contain that word!

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-13-2011 11:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 131 of 211 (633635)
09-15-2011 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by rueh
09-15-2011 8:18 AM


Re: chance and necessity
rueh writes:

No I don't believe I am confusing the two. What I am saying is that you are still making a choice to either be willing or unwilling regardless of how that choice is determined. It could be by weighing the information and determining the consequences of your action or by diving tea leaves. Ultimately you are still making a choice of willing or unwilling.


I think I see what you mean and I agree.

I think that RAZD's example involving the flower was better, because there you have a response which is without a choice.

Maybe the 3rd option from 'Willing' and 'Unwilling' is 'Mindless Compulsion'?


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:18 AM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:32 AM Panda has responded
 Message 138 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 12:13 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 133 of 211 (633640)
09-15-2011 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by rueh
09-15-2011 8:32 AM


Re: chance and necessity
rueh writes:

Well that would eliminate willingness but not ability. So the logic that a given action comes down to either ability or willingness is still sound.


I didn't think we were necessarily looking to 'eliminate' aspects of this situation.

If you add mindlessly compulsed* you get:
able + willing
able + unwilling
able + compulsed
able + un-compulsed
unable + willing
unable + unwilling
unable + compulsed
unable + un-compulsed

*Yeah, yeah. It's not a 'real' word.......yet.

{abe}I think my list needs some more thought...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : Missed some bits...


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 8:32 AM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by rueh, posted 09-15-2011 12:03 PM Panda has not yet responded
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2011 1:21 PM Panda has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019