rombomb2 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
When you or I would we see the obvious- that the Turkish embassador had no control over the fact that he croaked, and when he croaked, and could have no 'motive" for it.
You said that there *could* be no motive. That means there *could* be motive.
But how would you or I know whether there is or isn't motive? Doesn't he first have to ask himself the question? Lets say he answered his own question within a fraction of a second and said, 'Na there's no motive, because of X', where X is obvious.
Is this over-analyzing?
First - I admit the phrase "there could be no motive for it" is grammatically ambiguous.
And Im assuming that the embassador didnt commit suicide.
I was using the phrase "there could be no motive for it" to mean that "it is impossible for there to have been a motive for it", not the way you're reading it, which is "its just possible that there was no motive for it[ ie that there may or may not have been a motive]." Which are two quite different meanings.
But to answer your question - Yes, even that brief little statement "was there a motive...naaah...its obvious there couldnt be." is more thought than most people would excert. Because [unless the guy commited suicide] it would not even occur to most people that a person would need or have a "motive' to die- so most folks would not even need that moment of reflection to realize the absurdity of the question "what was his motive to die?". They wouldnt need to put themselves back in the box, because it wouldnt occur to them to think out of the box in the first place.
18 Dec 2011, 8:14 am
