cyprusgrump wrote:You are completely unable to appreciate the meaning of 'binary' aren't you...?
I am perfectly able to understand and appreciate, as well as many, if not most, the varied meanings and use of the word binary and the underlying concept that label seeks to convey when used in a given context. That it appears that the only response you seem to have to the points I have made, other than to ignore them entirely and just repeat your starting statement, is to 'belittle' my cognitive abilities, to me is quite telling. Just stating someone who has a different view to you is wrong because they are stupid is not my idea of a rewarding dialectic experience. It can and inevitably does however inform my opinion, to some degree, of you, as wrong as that may turn out to be.
Decisions can be binary yet still involve and lead to multiple possible outcomes that all or to some degree met the original binary decision.
Should we eat out tonight ? That is a binary decision. That is is a binary decision but this does not mean there is no need to ask 'where should we eat out' if the decision to the original binary question was 'yes'. Should we all go out and watch a film tonight. Binary. Should we move house. Binary. Should we put up our prices. Binary. The idea that just because a question/decision is binary , therefore any implementation of that decision needs no further agreement or discussion is I would suggest somewhat undermined by the examples I have given ?
I will try and use an exaggerated analogy in an attempt to get the essence of my view / opinion / identity across as clearly as I can with the tools available to me. It is not an attempt to 'prove' I am right and any else who disagrees is wrong. Just and attempt to explain the point I am trying to make as clearly as I can in the vain hope that it will not just either be ignored or dismissed as a failing of my intelligence or ability to understand or written off with 'long winded crap can not be arsed to respond to it, but can be arsed to tell you I can not be arsed to read it'. Vain hopes I know.
So 5 people 40 years ago agreed to go and live together in London. Let call them Grump, Erol, Dave, Mary and Jane. They all agree and then they find a suitable house in London and buy it and move in to it, all by agreement, with majority deciding when unanimity can not be reached. Over the years some tire of living in London more than others. 40 years later they all agree to vote on 'should we move out of London or not' and agree to abide by the majority decision. Erol and Jane vote to remain in London. The other three vote to leave. So far so good.
Grump then says to me 'so that is agreed, when are you going to quit your job and start looking for a different one outside of London ?
Me: To which I reply 'hang on a minute I just voted to move out of London, I did not vote to move so far out of it that I can not still reasonably commute in to London from outside ?"
Grump: everyone knew what moving out of London meant when we voted and agreed to abide by the decision. You are just trying to overturn that vote now because you didnt get the result you wanted ?
me: Hang on a minute I did not know that and if that was the case why when discussing if we should move out of London did you give examples of people living in Hertfordshire that commuted in to London for work as examples, if it was clear that 'leaving London' meant leaving in its entirety, not just where our house is ?
Grump: It was a binary choice. What do you not understand about binary ? Living outside London but working in London is not 'leaving London'. It is 'leaving London in name only'. You said you respect the outcome of the vote. Only moving so far away from London that you can not feasibly work there and preferably not even visit every month or so, is what the vote result requires. Everyone knew this when they voted. You are just stupid and seeking to overturn the decision because you do not like it.
me: hang on. I am happy to move out of London, given that was the majority decision, but can we not at least discuss the option of moving say to St Albans, from where I could still commute in and keep my job of the last 40 years ?
Grump: The decision was binary. You have accepted that. Anything you say beyond at is puerile nonsense.
me: sigh
--------------------------
Personally I find it nearing the realms of beyond all possibility that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the essence of the point I am sharing here. So I am left with speculating why it is you seem to be trying so hard to make out that you can not understand what I am saying ?
