Anthropology Survey

[Schopenhauer]

<sup>"I can't reach the pen" is a statement. It has no value.

It would be similar to claiming that someone is rude because they have difficulty walking.</sup>

[StaticElectron]

<sup>"I can't reach the pen" is a statement. It has no value.

It would be similar to claiming that someone is rude because they have difficulty walking.</sup>

If someone has difficulty walking, that is not rude. If that person, however, says "I can't walk", using an imperative voice tone -implicitly demanding someone to help him-, then he might be rude, provided his voice tone is too imponent. Such a voice tone can give a sentence an edge of duty, whether or not there is an explicit given order. People then interpret tone to construct a "hidden" command from the sentence.

Thus, "I can't reach the pen", can most likely be interpreted as an indirect form of "Give me that pen". Being indirect, it is less rude than a straight command, but being imponent, it is nevertheless impolite.

[Schopenhauer]

If someone has difficulty walking, that is not rude. If that person, however, says "I can't walk", using an imperative voice tone -implicitly demanding someone to help him-, then he might be rude, provided his voice tone is too imponent. An imponent voice tone can give a sentence an edge of duty, whether or not there is an explicit given order written. People interpret the tone and notice there is a sense of command and so they construct a "hidden" order from the sentence.

Thus, "I can't reach the pen", can most likely be interpreted as an indirect form of "Give me that pen". Being indirect, it is less rude than a straight command, but being imponent, it is nevertheless impolite.

" I can't reach the pen" has no value.

It is a statement. A fact given by someone else.

[StaticElectron]

" I can't reach the pen" has no value.

It is a statement. A fact given by someone else.

It does have the interpretative value I explained on the previous post. Common language doesn't operate on a purely semantic level -where words only acquire one strict literal value-, it also carries connotation and interpretation of voice tone, and for ninety-something percent of the population this is a given, even if for you it isn't.

[Schopenhauer]

It does have the interpretative value I explained on the previous post. Common language doesn't operate on a purely semantic level -where words only acquire one strict literal value-, it also carries connotation and interpretation of voice tone, and for ninety-something percent of the population this is a given, even if for you it isn't.

On its own it has no value.

If I state that I have a car and that I have a severe form of cancer, would that upset you?

Facts are facts.

I can see how people "attach" value to things, but on their own they have no traits.

Anyone who is upset by things such as these needs to see a doctor.

[StaticElectron]

On its own it has no value.

If I state that I have a car and that I have a severe form of cancer, would that upset you?

Facts are facts.

I can see how people "attach" value to things, but on their own they have no traits.

Anyone who is upset by things such as these needs to see a doctor. <

You don't understand. For most of the population, interpretation of voice tone is just as important as meaning itself, on any given sentence, and they're not "attaching" values by reading these cues, these values are taken for granted by virtually everyone. You are just an exception to the norm, and that's not a good thing at all.

[Schopenhauer]

You don't understand. For most of the population, interpretation of voice tone is just as important as meaning itself, on any given sentence, and they're not "attaching" values, these values are taken for granted by virtually everyone. You are just an exception to the norm, and that's not a good thing at all.

There is no such thing as "a voice tone."

People interpret information based on their own delusional conscience. It rarely follows the truth.

If you're upset by the fact that someone can't reach something, you need help.

If you are the cause of that issue, then move aside.

"How dare I prevent you from reaching the pen, you jerk!"

[StaticElectron]

There is no such thing as "a voice tone."

There is a feature of speech and communication known as intonation. In fact, that's the very reason why the people posting in here are positioning an otherwise neutral statement as "I can't reach that pen" as impolite. You refuse to understand.

[Schopenhauer]

But there is. In fact, that's the very reason why the people posting in here are positioning an otherwise neutral statement as "I can't reach that pen" as impolite. I tried to explain things to you, but you don't seem willing to understand it. I'm done with this topic.

There can't be a "voice tone" if the information is interpreted by the individual receiving the information.

A "voice tone" implies that there is a tone.

If someone interprets a bell as sounding like a cat, we can easily see that the subject is insane.

[StaticElectron]

There can't be a "voice tone" if the information is interpreted by the individual receiving the information.

A "voice tone" implies that there is a tone.

Voice tone is both purposefully provided by the delivering party to give his message further meaning, and innately interpreted by his receiving party to understand this message. That is the reason why all of the people who posted on this thread positioned an otherwise apparently neutral sentence as "I can't reach that pen" as an implication of command, whereas it would take a purely semantic interpretation -yours- to make it only referential. There's no point for you in arguing against something that is factually true.