Charity for your name in aMoL

[Mr Ares]

Perhaps that was a bad example. Here is a better (famous) one: "All men are created equal"

Literally, that is not true. However, the sentiment is "everyone deserves some equal rights", which is true. Most people will read the sentiment and ignore the literal words.

It is literal. Bad example. Everyone deserves the same inalienable human rights by virtue of being equal - you are not better, thus you do not deserve more rights. As opposed to Divine Right of Kings - I am better, I was chosen by God, I deserve more rights by virtue of that.

 

You dismissed a literal intepretation of his words.

Yes, because that interpretation makes no sense.

 

You did not respond to what was written. You disregarded the literal interpretation of those words on favour of what you thought was being said.

You claim that I read the post, interpreted it literally, then interpreted it another way, then decided that the second one was better and stuck with that. That did not happen. I did not chose between the two interpretations. I only read the one.

You contradict yourself. You never read the literal interpretation of his words, yet you still disregarded it. Did it occur to you that the literal interpretation of his words was not what was meant? Did you or did you not read what was there?

 

You decided to speak for him, to say he said something other than what he said.

"What he said" (the literal interpretation) is obviously not true. "What he said" (the cynical interpretation) makes sense. Therefore I responded to the cynical interpretation. I never even considered answering him as if he actually thought that "the richest fan will be in the book".

You responded to a cynical interpretation, not the only one, not the one the poster necessarily meant. Why should you speak for him? Why should you disregard his words in favour of what you would like him to have said?

 

You read it as saying what you wanted it to say, and responded to what you wanted it to be referring to. Thus flawed.

My interpretation of the post is not wrong, nor is it unfounded. Also, it did not come from my desires, wants, or fantasies. It was my honest initial reaction. Further, there is good reason to believe that the poster was being cynical. Is my interpretation of what was said wrong? Or is it a flaw to answer the contextual meaning of a statement instead of the literal meaning?

Your honest initial reaction, but what caused you to have that initial reaction, given that it is not the only possiblie initial reaction? Your own biases. Thus you interpreted it to mean what you wanted it to mean, and responded to what you wanted it to mean rather than what was said.

 

Consider this alternate exchange, which I have made up:

"There is an auction to get in the book"

"Yay, the richest fan will be in the book."

"I assume you don't actually think the richest fan will be in the book, but are being cynical because auctions generally favor the rich participants. Well, that cynical sentiment is unfounded because everybody who donates will have a chance to be in the book."

Was the cynicism what you believe it was? Was the cynicism only rich fans get in, or was it that rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else? It could have been either, thus you were not necessarily answering the point, thus the argument put forward is flawed. You were not responding to what was said, but what you wanted to be said.

 

If you were a judge, would you say that the literal words of a piece of legislation should be disregarded in favour of what you thought the Act meant to say?

I will repeat that I did not disregard one meaning in favor of another: I read the cynical interpretation without considering the literal one at all.

It never even occured to you that the literal interpretation was obviously not the one meant? You didn't even consider it was wrong before you disregarded it? It is only after you responded that it even occured to you that there even was a plain, literal meaning that could be incorrect?

As to your question, a judge must consider the intent of the law.

There is no must about it. Many Judges do not. They consider only what the legislators saw fit to legislate. It is not their duty to make laws.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

Or at least as plausible is " a rich fan will get his name in the book simply because he is willing and able to outbid the rest of us and that's unfair."

 

In which case your statement that there will be a lottery that all who donate $20 will be eligible for does not respond to the posters statement.

You have misquoted me.  My statement was: "Nope: All fans who donate will get a chance to be in the final book in the series, “A Memory of Light,” regardless of the amount given."  Even though there are interpretations which don't fit with what I said, as long as there is one that does, I was not wrong.

 

In such a case the approriate thing would be to respond to all reasonably possible (or at least probable) interpretaions otherwise you are simply creating a strawman instead of responding to another's post.

I don't see any reason to do that.  A "straw man" is when you alter an argument to make it easier to refute.  Responding to a valid interpretation is not setting up a straw man.

 

To infer an interpretation not clearly made by the author is the hight of arrogance that in the field of law is termed Judicial Activism and in debate shows a lack of respect for a participent to make the argument he wants to make (no more or less).

Is that what happened here?  I believe that the author was clearly cynical.  Do you think I was being arrogant because it was not obvious enough?  We were not debating and we are not judges.  Perhaps if we were the poster would have clarified his cynicism, but he didn't and that leaves us with our interpretation.

 

It is literal. Bad example. Everyone deserves the same inalienable human rights by virtue of being equal - you are not better, thus you do not deserve more rights. As opposed to Divine Right of Kings - I am better, I was chosen by God, I deserve more rights by virtue of that.

What about physical appearance, family situation, location, complications, and personality?  Men are not created equal when it comes to those things.  So, it is not literally true that "all men are created equal" - the statement must be read contextually to say "people are born with some equal rights".

 

You contradict yourself. You never read the literal interpretation of his words, yet you still disregarded it. Did it occur to you that the literal interpretation of his words was not what was meant? Did you or did you not read what was there?

I did read "what was there", but not literally.  I only "disregarded" the literal interpretation in the sense that I never regarded it, I never thought about it.

 

You responded to a cynical interpretation, not the only one, not the one the poster necessarily meant. Why should you speak for him? Why should you disregard his words in favour of what you would like him to have said?

Making a reasonable assumption about the meaning of the post is not "speaking for" the poster.  I will repeat once more that I didn't disregard the literal meaning because that requires that I considered it in the first place.

 

Your honest initial reaction, but what caused you to have that initial reaction, given that it is not the only possiblie initial reaction? Your own biases. Thus you interpreted it to mean what you wanted it to mean, and responded to what you wanted it to mean rather than what was said.

That makes it sound like I shaped my reaction willingly.  I did not.  My initial reaction was not the only possible one, but it is logical.

 

Was the cynicism what you believe it was? Was the cynicism only rich fans get in, or was it that rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else? It could have been either, thus you were not necessarily answering the point, thus the argument put forward is flawed. You were not responding to what was said, but what you wanted to be said.

I think either one would work in this case:

1)"It sucks that only rich fans get in"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

2)"It sucks because rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

The existence of multiple interpretations does not make an argument based on a particular one flawed.

 

It never even occured to you that the literal interpretation was obviously not the one meant? You didn't even consider it was wrong before you disregarded it? It is only after you responded that it even occured to you that there even was a plain, literal meaning that could be incorrect?

Right.  Except, I didn't "disregard" as in "dismiss" or "intentionally ignore".  The possibility that the poster intended a literal meaning did not occur to me.

 

There is no must about it. Many Judges do not. They consider only what the legislators saw fit to legislate. It is not their duty to make laws.

That was just my opinion:  I think that judges are lax if they do not consider the intent of the law.  Also, here we have "judicial review", where judges may decide if a law is constitutional.  That implies that the judges must look beyond the letter of the law.  For example, the US supreme court ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional despite the fact that it had previously upheld that same principal - the only thing that changed was comprehension of the law's intent: enough people realized that it was used to exploit blacks.  I know that review isn't a universal power of all judiciaries, and remember this is just my opinion.  I imagine someone from the UK (is that where you are from Mr Ares?) would think differently, because you have "parliamentary sovereignty".

 

Why should you disregard his words in favour of what you would like him to have said?

Thus you interpreted it to mean what you wanted it to mean, and responded to what you wanted it to mean rather than what was said

You were not responding to what was said, but what you wanted to be said.

Please stop insisting that I have done those things.  I did not have an agenda when I read the post.  "What I wanted" did not interfere with my response.  I didn't "want" to read any particular meaning.  I never had more than one interpretation to chose from, so I couldn't have favored it over others - there were no others.

[CUBAREY]

You have misquoted me.  My statement was: "Nope: All fans who donate will get a chance to be in the final book in the series, “A Memory of Light,” regardless of the amount given."  Even though there are interpretations which don't fit with what I said, as long as there is one that does, I was not wrong.

 

You misunderstood me, possibly because i did not make my intent clear.  The Statement I quoted was a third interpretation of the original posters statement.

 

His statement could be plausibly be read as decrying the ability of a rich person to guarantee himself a place in AMOL when the rest of us only have the chance offered by a lottery.

 

So, it is not literally true that "all men are created equal" - the statement must be read contextually to say "people are born with some equal rights".

 

Actually, the original quote is "all men are created equal, under God" (i.e. all men are sinners and thus equal under Gods eyes). A more recent and secular quote would be "All men are created equal, under law (i.e. that no man has is because of his birth or economic status entitled to special privileges under the law).

 

Also, here we have "judicial review", where judges may decide if a law is constitutional.  That implies that the judges must look beyond the letter of the law.  For example, the US supreme court ruled that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional despite the fact that it had previously upheld that same principal - the only thing that changed was comprehension of the law's intent: enough people realized that it was used to exploit blacks. 

 

Actually, you are misstating both the meaning of "Judicial Review" and the holding of Brown V. School Board. "Judicial Review" is the principle established in Marbury v. Madison, that states the constitution gives the Judicial branch the authority to review both Execative and legislative actions and declare them unconstitutional. Moreover, conservative judges pre-eminent among them is Justice Scalia, argue for "Strict Scrutiny" which requires that judges should not go beyond the specific language of a statute or constitutional provison when interpreting it. Moreover, in the Brown case the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, and the doctrine of "Seperate but Equal" by finding that 50 years of experience had shown that Seperate is never Equal.

 

Moreover, I do not recall of any instance where the US Supreme Court has overruled a precedent under the rationale that they had changed their minds on the intent of a constitutional provision or statute.

 

Sorry for the long winded explaination your argument brought me back to my law shool days.

[Mr Ares]

Even though there are interpretations which don't fit with what I said, as long as there is one that does, I was not wrong.

You are wrong because your statement does not address the point. It is a non sequitur.

 

It is literal. Bad example. Everyone deserves the same inalienable human rights by virtue of being equal - you are not better, thus you do not deserve more rights. As opposed to Divine Right of Kings - I am better, I was chosen by God, I deserve more rights by virtue of that.

What about physical appearance, family situation, location, complications, and personality? Men are not created equal when it comes to those things. So, it is not literally true that "all men are created equal" - the statement must be read contextually to say "people are born with some equal rights".

They deserve equal rights because they are equal is the point. They may be unequal in some respects (height, for example), but they are equal in others, and it is from that equality that they derive equal rights.

 

I did read "what was there", but not literally. I only "disregarded" the literal interpretation in the sense that I never regarded it, I never thought about it.

So you want me to believe that it was never apparent that there was a literal interpretation, even if that interpretation was clearly, in your mind, not the one intended? That you did not read "The richest fan gets to be in AMoL", and thought he must mean something else, you only read "Only rich people have a chance get in AMoL", even though this is not what was written? That the literal meaning of his words did not pass through your brain, only to be instantly dismissed as clearly not what was intended, that his actual words never occured to you? I don't believe you.

 

You responded to a cynical interpretation, not the only one, not the one the poster necessarily meant. Why should you speak for him? Why should you disregard his words in favour of what you would like him to have said?

Making a reasonable assumption about the meaning of the post is not "speaking for" the poster.

It is putting words in his mouth that he did not put there himself, thus speaking for him.  I will repeat once more that I didn't disregard the literal meaning because that requires that I considered it in the first place.

 

Your honest initial reaction, but what caused you to have that initial reaction, given that it is not the only possiblie initial reaction? Your own biases. Thus you interpreted it to mean what you wanted it to mean, and responded to what you wanted it to mean rather than what was said.

That makes it sound like I shaped my reaction willingly.

A thought comes when it wants, not when you want.

 

I think either one would work in this case:

1)"It sucks that only rich fans get in"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

2)"It sucks because rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

But rich people do have an opportunity not available to everyone else - if there are two opportunitites, one which awards its prize to the highest bidder, and one which awards its prize to someone who makes a donation who is chosen at random, then there is an opportunity for rich people not available to the less wealthy elements of the fan base. Not everyone has a spare $10,000, which is the current highest bid in the silent auction. Not everyone can take part in that competition. Thus only people with quite a lot of spare cash have that opportunity, while there is another opportunity available for everyone. Therefore, your argument does not address the initial post. A rich person could still buy his or her way into the books in a way most fans couldn't. That opportunity is not available to most. You decided to respond not to the post, but to what you wanted the post to mean.

 

It never even occured to you that the literal interpretation was obviously not the one meant? You didn't even consider it was wrong before you disregarded it? It is only after you responded that it even occured to you that there even was a plain, literal meaning that could be incorrect?

Right. Except, I didn't "disregard" as in "dismiss" or "intentionally ignore". The possibility that the poster intended a literal meaning did not occur to me.

You don't get it. I don't mean that it never occured to you that he might mean it literally, I mean that it never occured to you that there was a literal meaning for him to mean.

 

I think that judges are lax if they do not consider the intent of the law.

And many judges consider themselves to be overstepping their authority if they do so.

 

Please stop insisting that I have done those things.

Truth hurts.

there were no others.

There were. If you didn't see them, you didn't look.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

If the literal interpretation is not logical, what is being said?  We must decide for ourselves.  What do you think the post meant?  My interpretation makes sense.  If yours also makes sense, you can truthfully say that you are right, but it is not true that I am wrong.

 

You are wrong because your statement does not address the point. It is a non sequitur.

Actually, it does address the point.  You just don't agree with my interpretation, despite its logic.

 

They deserve equal rights because they are equal is the point. They may be unequal in some respects (height, for example), but they are equal in others, and it is from that equality that they derive equal rights.

Are all men created equal?  Literally?  No.  That was all I was trying to say.

 

So you want me to believe...I don't believe you.

The words passed through my brain while reading (that would be part of the definition of reading), but I never consciously thought that the literal words were intended.  Why is that so hard to believe?

 

It is putting words in his mouth that he did not put there himself, thus speaking for him.

I insist that my interpretation is logical.  I did not make up a meaning for the words, rather I identified the most likely meaning.  If you think that makes my statement wrong, then you have a ridiculous notion of personal communication.

 

But rich people do have an opportunity not available to everyone else...Not everyone has a spare $10,000, which is the current highest bid in the silent auction...A rich person could still buy his or her way into the books in a way most fans couldn't.

I agree that "Yey! The richest fan will be in the book" could mean a few different things.  However, in context it indicates cynicism, anger, or frustration.  We are on a fan forum, so I assumed that, rather than general frustration at the wealth of others, the post was expressing frustration at the fact that this person doesn't have the chance to be in the book (because they aren't rich).  That was my interpretation, so I said "Nope: everyone has a chance".

 

You don't get it. I don't mean that it never occured to you that he might mean it literally, I mean that it never occured to you that there was a literal meaning for him to mean.

If asked "is there a literal meaning to that statement?" I would have said "yes".  However, no one asked me that.  It was not required or helpful to consider other meanings.

 

Truth hurts.

But those are lies: I didn't chose, select, or favor one meaning over another, but that is what you repeatedly claimed.

 

There were. If you didn't see them, you didn't look.

I said that there were no other interpretations available to me.

 

 

 

His statement could be plausibly be read as decrying the ability of a rich person to guarantee himself a place in AMOL when the rest of us only have the chance offered by a lottery.

That interpretation is not wrong, but mine isn't either.

 

Actually, the original quote is "all men are created equal, under God" (i.e. all men are sinners and thus equal under Gods eyes). A more recent and secular quote would be "All men are created equal, under law (i.e. that no man has is because of his birth or economic status entitled to special privileges under the law).

I was quoting the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It requires the use of context clues, and a non-literal interpretation of the word "equal" to make sense of that statement.  That is my point: that it is okay to use context and non-literal meanings.

 

Actually, you are misstating both the meaning of "Judicial Review" and the holding of Brown V. School Board. "Judicial Review" is the principle established in Marbury v. Madison, that states the constitution gives the Judicial branch the authority to review both Execative and legislative actions and declare them unconstitutional. Moreover, conservative judges pre-eminent among them is Justice Scalia, argue for "Strict Scrutiny" which requires that judges should not go beyond the specific language of a statute or constitutional provison when interpreting it. Moreover, in the Brown case the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, and the doctrine of "Seperate but Equal" by finding that 50 years of experience had shown that Seperate is never Equal.

 

Moreover, I do not recall of any instance where the US Supreme Court has overruled a precedent under the rationale that they had changed their minds on the intent of a constitutional provision or statute.

IANAL, but I am sure that judicial review allows judges to declare a law unconstitutional.  In Brown vs. Board of Education, the ruling of "separate but equal" was declared unconstitutional by the judges on the Supreme Court.  "Changed their minds" is too casual - like you said, it required the experience of 50 years of segregation (and a different set of judges) to show the court that "separate but equal" was used to take away the rights of African Americans.  However, the understanding of the "equal protection clause" did change between Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education.

 

 

[Mr Ares]

If the literal interpretation is not logical, what is being said? We must decide for ourselves.

We could just ask for further clarification, thus making sure that what we are responding to is what the initial poster said, not just what we would like him to be saying.

 

Actually, it does address the point.

It addresses what you wanted the point to be.

 

They deserve equal rights because they are equal is the point. They may be unequal in some respects (height, for example), but they are equal in others, and it is from that equality that they derive equal rights.

Are all men created equal? Literally?

Yes. Depending on the sense in which equal is meant.

 

So you want me to believe...I don't believe you.

The words passed through my brain while reading (that would be part of the definition of reading), but I never consciously thought that the literal words were intended. Why is that so hard to believe?

Why did you never believe the literal words were intended? Also, you must have intepreted them in order to believe that was not intended. Thus, you reinterpreted.

 

But rich people do have an opportunity not available to everyone else...Not everyone has a spare $10,000, which is the current highest bid in the silent auction...A rich person could still buy his or her way into the books in a way most fans couldn't.

I agree that "Yey! The richest fan will be in the book" could mean a few different things. However, in context it indicates cynicism, anger, or frustration. We are on a fan forum, so I assumed that, rather than general frustration at the wealth of others, the post was expressing frustration at the fact that this person doesn't have the chance to be in the book (because they aren't rich). That was my interpretation, so I said "Nope: everyone has a chance".

But that is beside the point. The point is that your argument, which you claimed worked for either interprtation, does not. It clearly fails to address this point, thus you are now changing your argument and moving the goalposts because you have been proven wrong.

 

You don't get it. I don't mean that it never occured to you that he might mean it literally, I mean that it never occured to you that there was a literal meaning for him to mean.

If asked "is there a literal meaning to that statement?" I would have said "yes". It was not required or helpful to consider other meanings.

So, you understood there was a literal meaning. DId you understand what that meaning was at the time of your initial response? As for not required or helpful to look at other meanings, that is just plain wrong. It would be very helpful if you looked at the evidence and made a decision as to what might be meant. As it was, you seized on the first non-literal interpretation that presented itself to you, and didn't stop to consider whether or not this was actually the one meant. It could have been very helpful if you stopped to consider what was meant before responding with what you wanted it to mean.

 

Truth hurts.

But those are lies: I didn't chose, select, or favor one meaning over another, but that is what you repeatedly claimed.

It is exactly what you did, whether conciously or not.

 

There were. If you didn't see them, you didn't look.

I said that there were no other interpretations available to me.

Yes, there were. If you had stopped, thought about it, you might have come up with a different interpretation. As it was, you couldn't be bothered. You didn't look at the other options. You just decided that what you thought he meant must be what he meant, without pausing to reconsider. They were not available to you because you couldn't be bothered to look.

 

I am sure that judicial review allows judges to declare a law unconstitutional.

Even if it does, it still does not mean judges need to look at the intentions of legislators. Only at the words of the Act, and the words of the constitution.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

We could just ask for further clarification, thus making sure that what we are responding to is what the initial poster said, not just what we would like him to be saying.

Here is the poster replying to me:

You totally deflated my cynicism.

(Thanks for correcting me).

I think that clarifies things.

 

Are all men created equal? Literally?

Yes. Depending on the sense in which equal is meant.

I said "literally", meaning "in the literal sense".  So, are they?

 

Why did you never believe the literal words were intended?

Probably because if the words were literal the post makes an unfounded claim, but there are sensible, non-literal interpretations available.

 

Also, you must have intepreted them in order to believe that was not intended. Thus, you reinterpreted.

Not if that "belief" is unconscious.  Even if I had reinterpreted, it is no different than how we "reinterpret" sarcasm - it is certainly not wrong to do so.  Nor is it wrong to pass over the literal meaning entirely, as I did, if there is evidence of sarcasm, cynicism, metaphor, or another device that would change the meaning of the words.

 

The point is that your argument, which you claimed worked for either interprtation, does not. It clearly fails to address this point, thus you are now changing your argument and moving the goalposts because you have been proven wrong.

Quotes would be helpful.  I claimed the word "nope", not my whole "argument", was right for either interpretation:

I already told you the "Nope" (and the quote after) were responses to what I thought zzyzx_scarecrow meant.  I wasn't trying to answer the literal statement on the page, but the one implied by his post.  He was being cynical, because usually only wealthy people get to do these things.  That seems obvious to me in his post.  But let's ignore all that and look simply at the words on the page, completely out of context.

 

"Nope" does apply to the literal statement:  Look at what zzyzx_scarecrow said - he is talking about the "richest" WoT fan.  Even if BS had a way to find out who that is, they wouldn't get to be in the book because of their wealth.  They would still have to make the largest donation.

It seems to me you are putting words in my mouth (rather than interpreting what I have written).  If you quote me I might understand better.

 

As for not required or helpful to look at other meanings, that is just plain wrong.

Okay - it might be helpful but it is not required.

 

I didn't chose, select, or favor one meaning over another

It is exactly what you did, whether conciously or not.

I meant consciously.  I assume you weren't asking me "Why should you unconsciously disregard his words in favour of what you would like him to have said?"  The answer to that is "I'm human and that's what our brains do."  The question implies I had a conscious notion of what I wanted to read, which is untrue.

 

You just decided that what you thought he meant must be what he meant, without pausing to reconsider. They were not available to you because you couldn't be bothered to look.

How is that wrong?

 

You think I've changed my argument?  Lets start over:

I was not wrong when I said "Nope".  That was supported by the quote I provided to answer the poster's sentiment "I won't have a chance to be in the book", which is a valid interpretation of the meaning behind his post.

 

What do you think the post meant?

 

I am sure that judicial review allows judges to declare a law unconstitutional.

Even if it does, it still does not mean judges need to look at the intentions of legislators. Only at the words of the Act, and the words of the constitution.

With the implied responsibility to interpret those documents when the literal wording leaves wiggle room.  The intentions of the framers might be considered in that case.

[Mr Ares]

We could just ask for further clarification, thus making sure that what we are responding to is what the initial poster said, not just what we would like him to be saying.

Here is the poster replying to me:

After you had already decided to speak for him.

 

Are all men created equal? Literally?

Yes. Depending on the sense in which equal is meant.

I said "literally", meaning "in the literal sense". So, are they?

Yes. In which literal sense. Equal heights? Literally, no. Metaphorically, as in no heights are better than others, yes. Equal in the eyes of God? Yes, literally, if you accept that God exists. It is not, in that case, a metaphor for something else, or a figure of speech, it is exactly what is meant.

 

Why did you never believe the literal words were intended?

Probably because if the words were literal the post makes an unfounded claim, but there are sensible, non-literal interpretations available.

Given your interpretation he still made an unfounded claim.

 

The point is that your argument, which you claimed worked for either interprtation, does not. It clearly fails to address this point, thus you are now changing your argument and moving the goalposts because you have been proven wrong.

Quotes would be helpful.

Was the cynicism what you believe it was? Was the cynicism only rich fans get in, or was it that rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else? It could have been either, thus you were not necessarily answering the point, thus the argument put forward is flawed. You were not responding to what was said, but what you wanted to be said.

I think either one would work in this case:

1)"It sucks that only rich fans get in"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

2)"It sucks because rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

The existence of multiple interpretations does not make an argument based on a particular one flawed.

"Nope, everyone has a chance" clearly does not address the concerns raised in the latter interpretation. Because there is still an opportunity available only to the wealthy.

 

What do you think the post meant?

I think it means he couldn't be bothered to read the opening post correctly.

 

With the implied responsibility to interpret those documents when the literal wording leaves wiggle room.

No such implied responsibility exists.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

After you had already decided to speak for him.

Yes.  I made an educated guess as to the meaning, and then it was confirmed.  Is it required to make sure my interpretation is right before answering it?  Perhaps I should have checked, but it does not make my response wrong, unless my interpretation is clearly wrong.  However, my interpretation was confirmed, and furthermore no one has shown that it was wrong or misguided.

 

Yes. In which literal sense. Equal heights? Literally, no. Metaphorically, as in no heights are better than others, yes. Equal in the eyes of God? Yes, literally, if you accept that God exists. It is not, in that case, a metaphor for something else, or a figure of speech, it is exactly what is meant.

Is there more than one literal sense?  Equal means "the same".  We have equal (the same) basic rights.  We are not created equal (the same).  Saying that a five foot man with a limp and bad eyes is equal to a six foot healthy athlete requires that we redefine "equal" to mean "the same except for unimportant differences" which is not the literal definition.  Further, what differences are important?  It depends on the context!  Thus the Declaration of Independence requires a non-literal, contextual interpretation of the word "equal".  Are we equal in the eyes of God?  If so, then does God not care about our differences?  Or, maybe "equal" here only refers to our ability to get into heaven.  That makes more sense but it requires a non-literal reading of "equal".  We have an equal chance to get into heaven, but we are not literally equal.

 

Given your interpretation he still made an unfounded claim.

The claim is not correct, but in general it has a foundation: one could see a reason to be cynical if this was just a normal auction, because then only rich people would have an opportunity to win.  On the other hand, the idea that "the richest fan will be in the book" is nonsense - even if richer participants have a greater chance to win a spot.

 

2)"It sucks because rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

"Nope, everyone has a chance" clearly does not address the concerns raised in the latter interpretation. Because there is still an opportunity available only to the wealthy.

You are focusing on the interpretation "It sucks that only a rich person will win the auction", while I think the important sentiment is "It sucks that the opportunity to be in the book is not available to everybody".  I answered that directly, saying that everybody does have an opportunity.  In other words, I think the "opportunity" mentioned is the opportunity to get in the book, not the opportunity to win the auction.  This is supported by the fact that we are on a fan forum.  He even says "the richest fan will get in the book", not "the richest fan will win the auction".  Therefore it seems reasonable to assume the goal is to "get in the book", not to "win the auction".  It is also quite correct to interpret the post the way you have.  It's not the only correct version though.

 

I think it means he couldn't be bothered to read the opening post correctly.

Why do you think that?  Did he contradict the OP?  Perhaps he made a claim that warrants the response "Nope: here-are-the-rules-that-show-you-are-wrong".

 

No such implied responsibility exists.

Maybe.

 

I don't want to talk this over forever; we must stop eventually.  If you reply to this I will reply back, and read your response to that reply (closing arguments, if you will).  However, that will be the end of it for me, unless you would like to continue a private discussion and have some interesting new things to say.  This probably should have been private anyway, because it was mostly just you and me going back and fourth.

[benr]

No problem, you two - I've enjoyed most...well, some..., OK, a little of this.

[CUBAREY]

It is also quite correct to interpret the post the way you have.  It's not the only correct version though.

 

 

Then the only correct procedure (the one which would have respected the posters ability to make an assertion) would be to list all possible interpretations and ask which one he meant by his statement and if you so wanted to adding how each interpretation might be wrong factually or which ones you might agree with.

 

Thus the Declaration of Independence requires a non-literal, contextual interpretation of the word "equal". 

 

Actually you are wrong it only requires a literal contextual interpretation. Taken as a whole the statement:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

;

 

indicates that the equality that is being expounded is the equality of rights. Moreover, both this fact and the existence of God is seen by the authors as indisputable (We hold these truths to be self-evident). Thus that equality may or may not be self-evident in another context (athletic ability, etc.,) is irrelevent a literal interpretation of the text shows that the authors  were only concerned with the equality of rights not other things in which men may or may not be equal in.

[Mr Ares]

Is there more than one literal sense?

Yes, just from that phrase in isolation. Not if the rest is taken into account.

 

The claim is not correct, but in general it has a foundation

No. That only a rich people had a chance was shot down by the opening post, so it was without foundation.

 

2)"It sucks because rich fans have an opportunity not available to everybody else"

"Nope: everyone has a chance"

"Nope, everyone has a chance" clearly does not address the concerns raised in the latter interpretation. Because there is still an opportunity available only to the wealthy.

You are focusing on the interpretation "It sucks that only a rich person will win the auction", while I think the important sentiment is "It sucks that the opportunity to be in the book is not available to everybody". I answered that directly, saying that everybody does have an opportunity. In other words, I think the "opportunity" mentioned is the opportunity to get in the book, not the opportunity to win the auction. This is supported by the fact that we are on a fan forum. He even says "the richest fan will get in the book", not "the richest fan will win the auction". Therefore it seems reasonable to assume the goal is to "get in the book", not to "win the auction". It is also quite correct to interpret the post the way you have.  It's not the only correct version though.

You miss the point again. You said you thought he was being cynical. It was pointed out that there was more than one possible cynical interpretation. You said that your initial argument addresses both cynical interpretations. Clearly it does not. If someone was upset about rich people having an opportunity not availabe to the poor, you pointing out that there is another opportunity is not necessarily goiong to make things any better, is it? So the very fact of there being interpretations that could easily have been meant that were not adequately covered by your point makes a nonsense of your claim that you addressed all cynical interpretations presented to you.

 

I think it means he couldn't be bothered to read the opening post correctly.

Why do you think that?

Because, after you had already decided to put words in his mouth and speak for him, more evidence came to light, that indicates that that is the case. Thus it is a belief based on evidence you did not have at the time.

 

This probably should have been private anyway.

Perhaps, but this way bumped the thread, and so had the potential to bring it to the attention of some who might otherwise not have known about it.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

You said that your initial argument addresses both cynical interpretations.

No I didn't say that.

 

If someone was upset about rich people having an opportunity not availabe to the poor, you pointing out that there is another opportunity is not necessarily goiong to make things any better, is it?

I think it would if that person wanted the opportunity and didn't care as much about how you they got it.

 

So the very fact of there being interpretations that could easily have been meant that were not adequately covered by your point makes a nonsense of your claim that you addressed all cynical interpretations presented to you.

But I never claimed that.

 

I think it means he couldn't be bothered to read the opening post correctly.

Why do you think that?

Because, after you had already decided to put words in his mouth and speak for him, more evidence came to light, that indicates that that is the case. Thus it is a belief based on evidence you did not have at the time.

That's not what I meant.  I meant, why did you interpret the way you did?  Also, the belief that I am right did not come from that evidence, the evidence merely confirmed my belief.

[Mr Ares]

You said that your initial argument addresses both cynical interpretations.

No I didn't say that.

Yes, you did. "I think either one would work in this case."

 

If someone was upset about rich people having an opportunity not availabe to the poor, you pointing out that there is another opportunity is not necessarily goiong to make things any better, is it?

I think it would if that person wanted the opportunity and didn't care as much about how you they got it.

And if their objection was to rich fans being able to buy their way into the series?

 

I think it means he couldn't be bothered to read the opening post correctly.

Why do you think that?

Because, after you had already decided to put words in his mouth and speak for him, more evidence came to light, that indicates that that is the case. Thus it is a belief based on evidence you did not have at the time.

That's not what I meant. I meant, why did you interpret the way you did?

Because I looked at the evidence. I had evidence avaiable to me that you didn't have when you decided to start putting words in his mouth.