Numbers

[Will Bouwman]

When you make a claim, I'll tell you whether I think you're being honest or not. What's your claim?

That you called me dishonest.

I called your statement dishonest.

Why?

[Immanuel Can]

That you called me dishonest.

I called your statement dishonest.

Why?

Well, that would be because it was.

[Will Bouwman]

I called your statement dishonest.

Why?

Well, that would be because it was.

Mr Can, you are such a useless wånker that you no longer know what statement is in question. Were you to rediscover it, you might appreciate why you are wrong. I put the odds of that at 50/50. The chances of you admitting it are not appreciably greater than zero, because, despite your adherence to a belief that has human fallibility as a core tenet, you cannot admit fallibility. As of this moment, you are going to hell.

[Immanuel Can]

Why?

Well, that would be because it was.

Mr Can, you are such a useless wånker that you no longer know what statement is in question.

Well, once again, and to no great surprise, you're wrong. Here you go:

Dishonest. You clipped from two conversations back, in order to avoid the problem and misrepresent the conversation.

Here's the whole segment of the conversation.
You said:

I don't see that as the reason we can't do sums in redness; it doesn't even strike me as true.

I responded:

Then maybe you'll show me how. Let's see if we can do a "sum in redness." The idea strikes me as exceedingly odd, and almost certainly expressive of a category error. But I won't conclude until I see.

Go ahead, please.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, once again, and to no great surprise, you're wrong.

Which bit is dishonest?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, once again, and to no great surprise, you're wrong.

Which bit is dishonest?

Go back. Read the red. Look at what you clipped.

Either you were hoping to misrepresent what I said, or you accidentally forgot a lot of what I had said, and accidentally dropped the context.

My assumption was that you were being consciously mendacious. But if you want to plead accidental amnesia instead...

See, in order to play the victim, it's important first to be innocent. That's a tip for you.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, once again, and to no great surprise, you're wrong.

Which bit is dishonest?

Go back. Read the red. Look at what you clipped.

Nope, not seeing it. What specifically is dishonest?

[Immanuel Can]

Which bit is dishonest?

Go back. Read the red. Look at what you clipped.

Nope, not seeing it. What specifically is dishonest?

Now I don't believe you.

But okay...if you don't see it, then I guess we're done.

[Will Bouwman]

Dishonest. You clipped from two conversations back, in order to avoid the problem and misrepresent the conversation.

Here's the whole segment of the conversation.
You said:

I don't see that as the reason we can't do sums in redness; it doesn't even strike me as true.

I responded:

Then maybe you'll show me how. Let's see if we can do a "sum in redness." The idea strikes me as exceedingly odd, and almost certainly expressive of a category error. But I won't conclude until I see.

Go ahead, please.

There is nothing dishonest there, Mr Can. Here's where you went wrong:

Mr Can, given that I don't see your explanation as the reason we can't do sums in redness,

No, no...I didn't say we can't. I said only that I can't see how it can be done, but you say you do, so I'd like to see you do it, so I can learn how it can be done.

The stage is yours.

You made a simple logical mistake. It does not follow from my not agreeing with your reason for why we cannot do sums in redness that I don't think there is any reason we can't do sums in redness. As I have pointed out, it is entirely possible to substitute all symbols for digits and operations for shades of red and in that sense do sums in redness, but the quantities and operations are independent of any name or colour we attribute to them. We happen to call the whole caboodle mathematics, it could have happened that we called it cheese, such are the vagaries of language. You made a mistake, Mr Can, but rather than simply admit it, you pass responsibility onto me. That is the essence of Christian morality: you fücked up, someone else pays.

[Immanuel Can]

It does not follow from my not agreeing with your reason for why we cannot do sums in redness that I don't think there is any reason we can't do sums in redness.

Great. Then what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?

[Will Bouwman]

It does not follow from my not agreeing with your reason for why we cannot do sums in redness that I don't think there is any reason we can't do sums in redness.

Great. Then what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?

Shades of red are not mathematical operators.
Anyway, now that you acknowledge your mistake, are you any closer to apologising for falsely accusing me of dishonesty?

[Immanuel Can]

It does not follow from my not agreeing with your reason for why we cannot do sums in redness that I don't think there is any reason we can't do sums in redness.

Great. Then what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?

Shades of red are not mathematical operators.

Right. I said that.

Moreover, maths deals with quantities. "Redness" is a quality. You can substitute any symbol for a quantity (so long as you stipulate it); but you can't substitute a quality for a symbol.

So it makes me wonder why you tried to do it...

[Immanuel Can]

It does not follow from my not agreeing with your reason for why we cannot do sums in redness that I don't think there is any reason we can't do sums in redness.

Great. Then what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?

Shades of red are not mathematical operators.
Anyway, now that you acknowledge your mistake,...

Hmmm...so you think I "acknowledged" what you call "my mistake"...

Please show me how you think I did this.

[Will Bouwman]

Great. Then what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?

Shades of red are not mathematical operators.

Right. I said that.

No you didn't.

Moreover, maths deals with quantities. "Redness" is a quality. You can substitute any symbol for a quantity (so long as you stipulate it); but you can't substitute a quality for a symbol.

So it makes me wonder why you tried to do it...

I didn't.

[Will Bouwman]

Great. Then what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?

Shades of red are not mathematical operators.
Anyway, now that you acknowledge your mistake,...

Hmmm...so you think I "acknowledged" what you call "my mistake"...

Please show me how you think I did this.

Again Mr Can:

It does not follow from my not agreeing with your reason for why we cannot do sums in redness that I don't think there is any reason we can't do sums in redness.

The mistake you made was to conclude that I don't think there is any reason we cannot do sums in redness. By asking "what IS your reason why you think we can't do sums in redness?" you acknowledge that I do think there is at least one reason we cannot do sums in redness.