If that is the case, then it doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s impossible to create unambiguous statements. What we’re talking about here is complex conversational speech, especially in regards to sensitive topics that people feel strongly about. And specifically, we’re talking about the usage of such speech in everyday interactions, in which words have to be formed on the fly at a rapid pace.
I'm agreeing with you.
However Brendan Fraser's character tries to phrase his wishes, the devil finds a way to mess him up.
What I do believe is that as the speaker I have to do my very best to make sure the receiver can understand what I'm saying, they have to do their part too, of course.
If the speaker neglects to choose their words with sufficient care, or the receiver doesn't make an effort in their interpretation then the balance of understanding tips away from being 50/50 and chaos ensues.
Sibling comments mention all kinds of secondary factors such as mood, bad faith, bias, but these are clear violations resulting from the offending side not making the necessary effort to meet half-way.
Not really. We have a responsibility for the effects of our actions. There is a practical limit to how far we can take worrying about those effects, but that doesn't mean the responsibility goes away.
The same is true for considering how different audiences will interpret your words. You have a responsibility do take those interpretations into consideration but there is a practical limit to how far it can be taken.
However, I believe the listener shares some of the responsibility to consider other (possibly more generous) interpretations beyond their initial reaction.
If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
Doesn't it? I might sneeze and inadvertantly cause a typhoon in Malaysia through the butterfly effect but I can't possibly know or predict that, so how can I take responsibility for it? What does "responsibility" even mean if it's practically outside of your control?
I would argue that the limits of our responsibility are defined by practical limitations. We can't take responsibility for accidental negatives, any more than we can take credit for accidental positives. If you tried to account for your entire impact on the universe, regardless of the practicality, you'd be paralysed with indecision.
The point is that the line for what you are and are not responsible for is a grey and fuzzy one that depends on the context the the decision, the magnitude of the decision, and your own capabilities as an agent.
My point is that the limitations of trying to understand how your words may be interpreted are similarly based in practical considerations.
If you can lose your job because someone misinterpreted what you said (or chose to misinterpret something clear), then that "practical limit" can get quite high...
>If both parties do this, is is remarkable how quickly disputes get resolved. If neither party does this, a conversation accomplishes nothing.
Well, if every person loved each other, then there would be no crime either!