My Alcohol Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Because they are going in reverse.

Yup!

Now, what benefit do you think there is in deliberately making people think something other than what is really going on?

I deliberately made them do that, did I?

 

[TLK Valentine]

BINGO!

Only I don't change the "definition of beer," I change the "kind of beer:" from root beer to alcohol.

You changed the definition you were using, and deliberately hid this.

Quite disingenuous.

Now you can move on and demonstrate how this is used by you to fashion a God in your own image.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yup!I deliberately made them do that, did I?

Because the only traction you get is by operating in the shadows. It’s obvious to anyone who is able to recognize truth.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

BINGO!

Only I don't change the "definition of beer," I change the "kind of beer:" from root beer to alcohol.

Sorry, no. Root beer is not a "kind of beer". Your failure to provide a context makes your statement less than truthful.

This reminds me of all those conversations with xianghua - calling something by a certain name does not make that thing what that name denotes in normal usage. It doesn't matter that somebody chose to use the word "beer" in the name, the drink is not beer.

 

[AV1611VET]

This reminds me of all those conversations with xianghua - calling something by a certain name does not make that thing what that name denotes in normal usage. It doesn't matter that somebody chose to use the word "beer" in the name, the drink is not beer.

My OP stands as written.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My OP stands as written.

So does my response.

Consider this: if I were to claim "I've eaten duck but I don't know what duck tastes like" then said it's because I had eaten Bombay Duck, would you accept that I was telling the truth about having eaten duck?

 

[Kylie]

I deliberately made them do that, did I?

You chose language that was ambiguous, and I really don't think that you didn't know what would happen. So, I think you chose such ambiguous language intentionally. So you didn't MAKE them think that, but you certainly did everything you could to get them there.

 

[Kylie]

I might start a thread asking for help, since I can't pay my rent and I am about to lose everything I own.

I mean, no one needs to know I'm playing Monopoly, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

So does my response.

Consider this: if I were to claim "I've eaten duck but I don't know what duck tastes like" then said it's because I had eaten Bombay Duck, would you accept that I was telling the truth about having eaten duck?

I thought I explained this literary illusion in Post 519?

My OP is just one example I made up.

There are whole bookfuls of examples available.

 

[AV1611VET]

You chose language that was ambiguous, and I really don't think that you didn't know what would happen. So, I think you chose such ambiguous language intentionally. So you didn't MAKE them think that, but you certainly did everything you could to get them there.

Guilty as charged.

In fact, if I could have made it more ambiguous, I would have.

QV Two Minute Mysteries, by Donald J Sobol.

 

[AV1611VET]

I might start a thread asking for help, since I can't pay my rent and I am about to lose everything I own.

I mean, no one needs to know I'm playing Monopoly, right?

I'll believe that when I see it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I thought I explained this literary illusion in Post 519?

My OP is just one example I made up.

There are whole bookfuls of examples available.

What you did was pretend an untruth was a literary illusion. That does not mean you successfully provided a literary illusion. Would you accept my claim about eating duck is a literary illusion? Or is it a dishonest play on words?

 

[durangodawood]

Dealing with falsehood and deception. Thats the "challenge".

 

[AV1611VET]

Dealing with falsehood and deception. Thats the "challenge".

I'm actually pleased that you guys are considering this literary illusion a "falsehood" and "deception."

It mitigates your credibility when you apply those terms (and their synonyms) elsewhere.

Like when you apply them to the likes of: Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, ICR, DI, and others.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm actually pleased that you guys are considering this literary illusion a "falsehood" and "deception."

It mitigates your credibility when you apply those terms (and their synonyms) elsewhere.

Like when you apply them to the likes of: Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, ICR, DI, and others.

Birds of a feather....

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm actually pleased that you guys are considering this literary illusion a "falsehood" and "deception."

It mitigates your credibility when you apply those terms (and their synonyms) elsewhere.

Like when you apply them to the likes of: Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, ICR, DI, and others.

Yes, these goofs also use doublespeak and play fast and loose with definitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, these goofs also use doublespeak and play fast and loose with definitions.

I'd stay away from books like these, then, if I were you:

Two Minute Mysteries

 

[Belk]

Sorry, no. Root beer is not a "kind of beer". Your failure to provide a context makes your statement less than truthful.

This reminds me of all those conversations with xianghua - calling something by a certain name does not make that thing what that name denotes in normal usage. It doesn't matter that somebody chose to use the word "beer" in the name, the drink is not beer.

Real root beer is a kind of beer and is alcoholic, just like a real ginger ale. Most root beer and ginger ale on the market are fake flavored soft drinks.

 

[Kylie]

Guilty as charged.

In fact, if I could have made it more ambiguous, I would have.

QV Two Minute Mysteries, by Donald J Sobol.

In my experience, only liars think ambiguous communication is a good idea.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Real root beer is a kind of beer and is alcoholic, just like a real ginger ale. Most root beer and ginger ale on the market are fake flavored soft drinks.

Re-writing history doesn't count.