Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 2410445" data-attributes="member: 16814">Are we then to assume from his statement that, aside from basic human requirements, he does nothing else but be a fireman?  That he performs no other tasks except those pertaining to being a fireman?  That if he does anything additional to 'fireman'ing he is, by your definition, a liar because he did not mention that in his statement?  And is only a lie if the speaker intends to conceal information.  If the statement is delivered during a fire, the speaker is merely passing along the most relevant information.  If it is during a traffic stop, then it would be anecdotal information because his status as a police officer would be inferred from his uniform, badge, and police car.  If it is in response to the question "what do you do for a living?," then perhaps the speaker feels that it is this job that most defines him, and that policework is not as important to him.  None of these things change the dual nature of his choice of employment.  Or are directly a lie.Nor can I assume that he is not.  Nothing in this statement indicates an absolute.  If the qualifier 'only' were inserted, then your assumption and his lie become obvious.  This is lacking, so any assumption made is based on less than full information and is likely to be incorrect.  Intent is one thing, forcing language to adapt to an inferred intent is a logical fallacy.</blockquote>