Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

I indeed meant humour goes beyond the playing with words, situational humour, slapstick, for example.

So, following my beloved Wikipedia, I'd say => a pun is simply a playful way to twist words/meanings. It can be humourous or not - but in no case I'd call it high or low. The deeper meaning of a pun IMO is to show new perspectives, perk up attention -and humour is a nice way to do that.
Kiya

A truly masterful presentation by Low Key. I suspect his forum name is a pun itself for Loki, the Norse god jokester.

We have a winner. Loki, take it away.

Let's hope he pops in soon, not to mention picking a good topic. I feel like I whant to argue (no matter how dead the forum is during the weekends...). So please, a topic I can understand. Thank you in advace (if you show up and post a good topic, that is...).

Übereil

<bows> Thank you, to all my victims, I owe it all to the world serpent,

I have a topic in mind, but I'll have to apologize in advance, I haven't kept up with the thread consistently, so if this has been proposed already I can find an alternate.

[color:"orange"]NEW TOPIC[/color]

Does Honesty exist?


Points to note in your presentation:
1. I said honesty...not truth
2. You must post in an alternating format, pro and con. The first person to respond must argue that honesty does exist, the person who posts next must argue that it does not, and so on. (hopefully we have an even number of responses <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )
3. Only one post per person please, but editing your post for later clarification is allowed (please leave edit notify in so I know I should reread)
4. To simplify the discussion, please assume I am referring to interpersonal communication rather than virtual entities, such as nations
5. No cop outs with honesty the word vs its meaning <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> , I am referring to whether the concept refers to something that is valid (possible)


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" /> making you think hard on a weekend <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />

honesty exists because i'm all what you don't want to be except dishonest!

PS you're conditions are far too restrictive!

personnaly i don't accept them... i would post as much as i want to in this thread and for this topic...
i will make as much "semantics analysis" and twisted analysis as i want to...
i don't need you for telling me what i have to do... all that because i'm honest and i would be even if the precedent post was saying that it is not possible to be honest!

i don't agree with lowkey rules so i don't follow them this is honesty... so honesty exists as i am able to exhibit it as an object... unparable logical argument!

edit: this is NO meaningless Spam

logical consequence... i won... next topic is...

chosen in a coupple of days by the new winner, picked by Lowkey.

And what has honesty got to do with rules? As far as I know, honesty has got to do with keeping words and vows, not to mention not lying (hope that is correct spelling btw). Not about following or not following rules. It DOES exist btw, I'm a living example of this...

Übereil

honesty has nothing to do with rules Ub, but that i don't follow rules by honesty has something to do with honesty... do you follow me? if you're not agreeing with rules could you pretend to be honnest in following them?

Honesty does not really exist. Any words spoken are immediately a lie as they are unable to convey the total complete and true nature of reality.
Taken from another point of view, all information we receive comes through our senses. Our senses are faulty. The information is conveyed along neural pathways which depend upon the movement of sodium and potassium ions in order to trigger an action potential (neural electrical impulse). The neural impulses are modulated, filtered and amplified multiple times before they even reach the brain and so what the brain ultimately perceives is not True Reality. ie. the information received by our senses is faulty. As they say in the computer world--garbage in>garbage out. Where is the room for honesty? We can endeavor to be honest, but inevitably we fail. We are capable of being sincere, but not honest or true.

The sole exception to the above is the honesty given out by the mystics who through their own inner communion with the Lord, (ie. direct perception of reality without the lie of the senses and illusion) are able to pass on the truth to their disciples without even the need for the medium of speech.

this is just a misunderstanding of the 3 Gödel's theorems, cleg because it is true in a way that words may be unable to convey etc... but only in an axioms system... and it is clear that reality is not an axioms system...


in these kinds of matters if there is an exception or more exactly a counter example it means the general case is false so unvalid so impossible...

So, Cleg, if I say this: "If an item is affected by no forces it will move with constant speed", do I lie?

Übereil

OK - so Low makes a point of saying "honesty" not "truth" - however:

In a court of law one would be asked to speak the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth - and I would say that living this principle, emotionally as well as in words and deeds, would be honest.

So if the question is reduced to "does it exist?", I'd argue that yes, some fraction of percentage of sentient beings on this planet are enlightened enough.

However as a consistent behaviour between humans? At least the latter part (the whole truth) is often sacrificed to "being tactful" and "not wanting to hurt feelings". Now this may be very good reasons given some circumstances - which would then mean that in inter-human communication consistent and total honesty, while being theoretically possible, is a Pandora's Box, which we have learned to fear - and therefore avoid?

i agree so i don't mind not being tactful or hurting feelings in this forum as in RL...

I think, you're right, Cleg. Honesty does not exist. I believe we humans have too many voices within us to speak with one totally.

Even when we assume, we are honest or the other person is honest, we filter the rest out. I think, we are only capable of partial honesty - now how to call that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />
Kiya

honnesty... if we are able of honnesty even partial honnesty for even just a moment that means honnesty exists... how could we participate, even unperfectly, to something that not exists <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />?

honesty. can u really separate it from the truth? can it stand on its own? on what basis honesty exist if not for truth as reference? & what does truth anchors on? reality. or is it?

what makes human perception flawed is perception. of reality. of truth. which affects honesty.

honesty exist only when u think it does. much like faith. so u see? perception changes everything.

Hmmm, some interesting points, if brief, so I'll end this topic a little early, in the event the brevity indicates a lack of interest, my apologies to any who wanted to respond but didn't get a chance. I should probably award the victory to Cleglaw just for knowing what an action potential is <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> , but I'll address the question at hand individually.

Janggut : While I agree that perception is important is measuring honesty, I'm not sure that perception alone can define whether honesty conceptually exists, so I don't think this answer can win.

Guroth :

Without form, nothing exists. One of the rules here, an unspoken one, was to communicate in english, such that I could understand the response. Another rule was that you had to post here, instead of sending me an answer via PM, for instance.

Indeed Master Guroth, you have followed many of my rules, and thus helped to establish the form of a genuine answer, as your behavior speaks louder than words in this case - however you said you didn't accept the rules, when in fact you have, and thereby not answered the question at all. Ergo you cannot win this argument, as technically you have not participated in it, though it was an entertaining response.

Ubereil : An interesting take with respect to the idea that honesty via actions, which is also a form of communication, can be taken to represent honesty conceptually, but I would say you are talking about something like duty or even loyalty to one's self concept, rather than honesty per se. So I cannot award the victory to you, not honestly.

Glance expands on this point and additionally makes it clear that honesty depends upon communication and our ability to do that internally first, also upon the audience and understanding, and upon the actual questions asked and the conditions under which they are asked, I.E. Honesty exists but calling something an honest answer depends on both parties conception of the situation and nature AND form of the question. Which is necessarily true if honesty exists, however, it does not strictly answer the question but clarifies conditions under which honesty might exist, I'm not sure this is a direct answer, though again, interesting.

Kiya makes an important point, very similar to Glance, in that we must be honest with ourselves and recognize in our communication what is honest, and also realize that one answer might be honest while at the same time being incomplete - honesty is not the same thing as a complete answer, nor does an honest attempt at an honest answer insure that the listener will interpret a response in the way it was intended. While true and important as well, still, I cannot regard that as a complete answer to the topic. (and IMO, the operating definition of honesty takes this reality into account - when we as humans say honesty, the presumption of imperfect and incomplete communication is, as it must be, taking into account the realities of the situation, ergo honesty is a comment on intent and expectation of understanding, if you will)

But my opinion on the correctness of an answer isn't relevant here - rather the form of the argument, and so in trying to be true to the forums nature-
Therefore the winner is Cleglaw : Not for being right, but rather, for answering in form, and therefore making the response real, but also, for covering all the most relevant points:

Cleglaw notes that honesty is about communication and depends upon it for its existence, but communication is imperfect with respect to our ability to transmit meaning (in effect we cannot prove we are being honest), one interpretation might be to call that result a lie, which is consistent with Cleglaw's position, and the point about sincerity, about intent rather than control of the actual result, is important, though I think it actually reverses Cleglaw's argument <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> (imo problems in measuring honesty don't nullify it's existence)
The exception also emphasizes perhaps the most important point, that if we can recognize the possibility of honesty then it must exist, regardless of how we might or if we could achieve it.

winner --> [color:"orange"]Cleglaw[/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />

Thank you all for playing

Thank you Low Key Loki and thank God there were no threats on my life this time around like there were in the aphorism argument.

Lately the post count has been relatively low in this thread so in the hopes of stimulating more exchange I am picking a controversial argument this time around.

Those in favor of abortion say that it is a woman's right to choose.Those opposed to abortion state that a woman has no right to kill an unborn child. The unborn child has a right to life. Argue these positions in light of the following:

"According to a recent report by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) up to 50 million girls and women are missing from India' s population as a result of systematic gender discrimination in India. In most countries in the world, there are approximately 105 female births for every 100 males. In India, there are less than 93 women for every 100 men in the population. The accepted reason for such a disparity is the practice of female infanticide in India, prompted by the existence of a dowry system which requires the family to pay out a great deal of money when a female child is married. For a poor family, the birth of a girl child can signal the beginning of financial ruin and extreme hardship. However this anti-female bias is by no means limited to poor families. Much of the discrimination is to do with cultural beliefs and social norms. These norms themselves must be challenged if this practice is to stop.

Diagnostic teams with ultrasound scanners which detect the sex of a child advertise with catchlines such as spend 600 rupees now and save 50,000 rupees later. The implication is that by avoiding a girl, a family will avoid paying a large dowry on the marriage of her daughter. According to UNICEF, the problem is getting worse as scientific methods of detecting the sex of a baby and of performing abortions are improving. These methods are becoming increasing available in rural areas of India, fuelling fears that the trend towards the abortion of female foetuses is on the increase."
from female foeticide--the killing of unborn girls

In light of this how can you possibly justify abortion? Any arguments regarding abortion must address female foeticide in India or they will not be considered.