The Nature of the Lie (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BanthaSamantha -> The Nature of the Lie (12/3/2011 9:38:29 PM)

After reading a good deal of posts here, one of the most common topics discussed is the lie. People are routinely accused of lying, and the term "liar" is bandied about like a badminton shuttle. What I wonder is this: Have we stopped to consider what a lie really is?

Here is an easily accessable web definition of lie.

To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth.

Let's explore the concept. Imagine you said something like, "The service at McDonalds blows." Did you tell a lie right then? Certainly, the entity McDonalds does not have the necessary mouth or lungs, so could not hope to blow anything.

Let's explore further. Imagine someone asked you if you were asked if you were going to the Kenny G concert, and you replied with an eyeroll, "Yes I am, and monkeys might fly out of my butt." Did you just tell a double lie? Clearly you don't want to go to the Kenny G concert, and there is no way monkeys could actually fly out of your butt.

Here's an article from The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bipartisan-law-would-make-dog-neckerchiefs-man,26301/ Is this article nothing but a big pile of lies? After all, it does talk about a new law making the wearing of dog neckerchiefs mandatory, a law that does not actually exist.


From one I can tell, none of these statements are actually lies. In order for something to be a lie, there must be an intent to deceive. In order for "And monkeys might fly out of my butt" to be a lie, you must actually intend the other person to believe that your butt is a nest of baby winged monkeys. Likewise, if that Onion article is nothing but lies, then every single comedy routine on SNL is a lie.

Your thoughts?




ilearn -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/3/2011 9:42:59 PM)

I always play a game with all my dates, called spot the lie. It is a popular game.
You make 4 statements.

One of them is an obvious lie, the other are things about you.

1) I love the color red.
2) I am grey and balding.
3) I was the pilot on the original mission to moon.
4) Heather Locklear is my favorite actress.


It is a nice game and the obvious lie is easy to spot. The other one is not.




tazzygirl -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/3/2011 9:52:14 PM)

I got the popcorn and the tequila for this one!

~snatches some truffles from Lucy and settles in

Btw, OP, I agree with you.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/3/2011 9:55:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilearn

I always play a game with all my dates, called spot the lie. It is a popular game.
You make 4 statements.

One of them is an obvious lie, the other are things about you.

1) I love the color red.
2) I am grey and balding.
3) I was the pilot on the original mission to moon.
4) Heather Locklear is my favorite actress.


It is a nice game and the obvious lie is easy to spot. The other one is not.


The other one is also obvious. So, did you wear a red flower on your way to the moon? And ditch the combover, its unbecoming of an astronaut.




LadyPact -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 1:38:33 AM)

I'm guessing this is in reference to the other thread you posted where you decided to change a key phrase to emphasize a point.  I'm not a participant on that thread, but I did read it. 

This is just My opinion, of course, but I didn't find your original to be intellectually honest.  You revealed what you were doing by post three, but it really should have been contained in the opening post.  In a sense, you did specifically intend to deceive, and then chose to label it satire.  A disclaimer would have been much more appropriate.  It also would have allowed your topic to be discussed, rather than the method that you presented it with.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 2:05:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

After reading a good deal of posts here, one of the most common topics discussed is the lie. People are routinely accused of lying, and the term "liar" is bandied about like a badminton shuttle. What I wonder is this: Have we stopped to consider what a lie really is?

Here is an easily accessable web definition of lie.

To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth.

Let's explore the concept. Imagine you said something like, "The service at McDonalds blows." Did you tell a lie right then? Certainly, the entity McDonalds does not have the necessary mouth or lungs, so could not hope to blow anything.

Let's explore further. Imagine someone asked you if you were asked if you were going to the Kenny G concert, and you replied with an eyeroll, "Yes I am, and monkeys might fly out of my butt." Did you just tell a double lie? Clearly you don't want to go to the Kenny G concert, and there is no way monkeys could actually fly out of your butt.

Here's an article from The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bipartisan-law-would-make-dog-neckerchiefs-man,26301/ Is this article nothing but a big pile of lies? After all, it does talk about a new law making the wearing of dog neckerchiefs mandatory, a law that does not actually exist.


From one I can tell, none of these statements are actually lies. In order for something to be a lie, there must be an intent to deceive. In order for "And monkeys might fly out of my butt" to be a lie, you must actually intend the other person to believe that your butt is a nest of baby winged monkeys. Likewise, if that Onion article is nothing but lies, then every single comedy routine on SNL is a lie.

Your thoughts?


Just to pile on LP's post, this is no more than a cover up for your deception in that thread. Satire is only such when it is clear that its satire, either presented by a known satirist or made clear that it is satire, either explicitly or being so over the top it can not be mistaken for anything else.


And of course your first example is just silly. In that context "Blows" means "bad" and has nothing to do with forced movement of air. No one who speaks colloquial English would interpret in any other way.

Irony is also clear to the listener or it is pointless.




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 4:45:05 AM)

Maybe I should remark that the lie depends on what you THINK that it is true.

You have a colleague, who told you "If my wife asks, I am in the bar" but you know that he is going to visit his lover. You agree. Later, without your knowledge, he finds out that her lover is herself enjoying a BBC and goes to the bar. The wife calls the colleague: "Where is my husband?" The answer "In the bar" is still a lie, even if the man is actually indeed in the bar, because the person who says it thinks otherwise.




Moonhead -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 5:10:17 AM)

There's posters in this thread SpanishHat doesn't have on ignore?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 7:19:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Maybe I should remark that the lie depends on what you THINK that it is true.

You have a colleague, who told you "If my wife asks, I am in the bar" but you know that he is going to visit his lover. You agree. Later, without your knowledge, he finds out that her lover is herself enjoying a BBC and goes to the bar. The wife calls the colleague: "Where is my husband?" The answer "In the bar" is still a lie, even if the man is actually indeed in the bar, because the person who says it thinks otherwise.



A lie of ommission, but not what BS (pun intended) was talking about.




xxblushesxx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 7:23:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

I'm guessing this is in reference to the other thread you posted where you decided to change a key phrase to emphasize a point.  I'm not a participant on that thread, but I did read it. 

This is just My opinion, of course, but I didn't find your original to be intellectually honest.  You revealed what you were doing by post three, but it really should have been contained in the opening post.  In a sense, you did specifically intend to deceive, and then chose to label it satire.  A disclaimer would have been much more appropriate.  It also would have allowed your topic to be discussed, rather than the method that you presented it with.



I didn't want to get in the middle of that mess either, but LadyPact just stated exactly my feelings on that thread. It was misleading. Intentionally so.
If you tell me my house is on fire, and I begin throwing my best things out in my yard to save them (breaking some in the process) telling me you were just kidding five minutes later isn't going to make me feel any better. And yes, it is still a lie.




rulemylife -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 8:21:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

After reading a good deal of posts here, one of the most common topics discussed is the lie. People are routinely accused of lying, and the term "liar" is bandied about like a badminton shuttle. What I wonder is this: Have we stopped to consider what a lie really is?

Here is an easily accessable web definition of lie.

To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth.

Let's explore the concept. Imagine you said something like, "The service at McDonalds blows." Did you tell a lie right then? Certainly, the entity McDonalds does not have the necessary mouth or lungs, so could not hope to blow anything.

Let's explore further. Imagine someone asked you if you were asked if you were going to the Kenny G concert, and you replied with an eyeroll, "Yes I am, and monkeys might fly out of my butt." Did you just tell a double lie? Clearly you don't want to go to the Kenny G concert, and there is no way monkeys could actually fly out of your butt.

Here's an article from The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bipartisan-law-would-make-dog-neckerchiefs-man,26301/ Is this article nothing but a big pile of lies? After all, it does talk about a new law making the wearing of dog neckerchiefs mandatory, a law that does not actually exist.


From one I can tell, none of these statements are actually lies. In order for something to be a lie, there must be an intent to deceive. In order for "And monkeys might fly out of my butt" to be a lie, you must actually intend the other person to believe that your butt is a nest of baby winged monkeys. Likewise, if that Onion article is nothing but lies, then every single comedy routine on SNL is a lie.

Your thoughts?


My thoughts are who in their right mind would want to go to a Kenny G concert?

And I've actually met the guy in a social setting and his personality matches his music.

But more to the point, I don't know whether you are just trying to be sarcastic or don't realize that The Onion is comedy.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 8:33:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

After reading a good deal of posts here, one of the most common topics discussed is the lie. People are routinely accused of lying, and the term "liar" is bandied about like a badminton shuttle. What I wonder is this: Have we stopped to consider what a lie really is?

Here is an easily accessable web definition of lie.

To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth.

Let's explore the concept. Imagine you said something like, "The service at McDonalds blows." Did you tell a lie right then? Certainly, the entity McDonalds does not have the necessary mouth or lungs, so could not hope to blow anything.

Let's explore further. Imagine someone asked you if you were asked if you were going to the Kenny G concert, and you replied with an eyeroll, "Yes I am, and monkeys might fly out of my butt." Did you just tell a double lie? Clearly you don't want to go to the Kenny G concert, and there is no way monkeys could actually fly out of your butt.

Here's an article from The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bipartisan-law-would-make-dog-neckerchiefs-man,26301/ Is this article nothing but a big pile of lies? After all, it does talk about a new law making the wearing of dog neckerchiefs mandatory, a law that does not actually exist.


From one I can tell, none of these statements are actually lies. In order for something to be a lie, there must be an intent to deceive. In order for "And monkeys might fly out of my butt" to be a lie, you must actually intend the other person to believe that your butt is a nest of baby winged monkeys. Likewise, if that Onion article is nothing but lies, then every single comedy routine on SNL is a lie.

Your thoughts?


My thoughts are who in their right mind would want to go to a Kenny G concert?

And I've actually met the guy in a social setting and his personality matches his music.

But more to the point, I don't know whether you are just trying to be sarcastic or don't realize that The Onion is comedy.



Then you better reread the whole thing because you obviously missed the point. Kenny G personality matches his music? Sharp by a half tone?




Owner59 -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 9:28:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha

After reading a good deal of posts here, one of the most common topics discussed is the lie. People are routinely accused of lying, and the term "liar" is bandied about like a badminton shuttle. What I wonder is this: Have we stopped to consider what a lie really is?

Here is an easily accessable web definition of lie.

To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth.

Let's explore the concept. Imagine you said something like, "The service at McDonalds blows." Did you tell a lie right then? Certainly, the entity McDonalds does not have the necessary mouth or lungs, so could not hope to blow anything.

Let's explore further. Imagine someone asked you if you were asked if you were going to the Kenny G concert, and you replied with an eyeroll, "Yes I am, and monkeys might fly out of my butt." Did you just tell a double lie? Clearly you don't want to go to the Kenny G concert, and there is no way monkeys could actually fly out of your butt.

Here's an article from The Onion. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-bipartisan-law-would-make-dog-neckerchiefs-man,26301/ Is this article nothing but a big pile of lies? After all, it does talk about a new law making the wearing of dog neckerchiefs mandatory, a law that does not actually exist.


From one I can tell, none of these statements are actually lies. In order for something to be a lie, there must be an intent to deceive. In order for "And monkeys might fly out of my butt" to be a lie, you must actually intend the other person to believe that your butt is a nest of baby winged monkeys. Likewise, if that Onion article is nothing but lies, then every single comedy routine on SNL is a lie.

Your thoughts?



Though the term means something very specific, unfortunately it`s become diluted and/or made meaningless from abuse.

I`ll go with something that can be proven,backed up and independently verified by multiple sources.

And if you`re calling someone a liar,you best be able to prove it under the same standard as above,otherwise you`re just another chump abusing the term.


Here on the boards,most people post honestly and can back up what they say or they don`t say it.They don`t want to be known as a bullshiter.

We go by the unwritten code of honor that`s backed up (usually)by not wanting to be (embarrassed by being) known as dis-honest.

For some people tho,bullshiting is part of the deal and there seems to be no shame about it.They use an Orwell-like term "fair and balanced" to describe it.

[:D]








BanthaSamantha -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 9:46:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Maybe I should remark that the lie depends on what you THINK that it is true.

You have a colleague, who told you "If my wife asks, I am in the bar" but you know that he is going to visit his lover. You agree. Later, without your knowledge, he finds out that her lover is herself enjoying a BBC and goes to the bar. The wife calls the colleague: "Where is my husband?" The answer "In the bar" is still a lie, even if the man is actually indeed in the bar, because the person who says it thinks otherwise.



That seems to fit the definition above. You stated something with disregard for the truth with the intent the other person would believe it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
This is just My opinion, of course, but I didn't find your original to be intellectually honest. You revealed what you were doing by post three, but it really should have been contained in the opening post. In a sense, you did specifically intend to deceive, and then chose to label it satire.


quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx
It was misleading. Intentionally so.


Really? I actually intended people to believe in a ridiculous cartoon scenario in which Michelle Bachmann came out forcefully against interracial marriage? Is there anyone in the entire universe whom would believe such would ever be said by a legitimate candidate for President? And what about the fact that, if one were to take it as true, they'd also have to believe that interracial marriage "is not the law of the land?" I actually intended to trick people into believing that interracial marriage was illegal all over again?

For those of you that actually believed my post was true (presumably acting on this revelation by cancelling their interracial marriage plans or donating to Bachmann's campaign) my bad. I probably should have used the word "interplanetary" instead of "interracial," but then people would have accused me of intentionally inciting anxiety about space aliens ruining the sanctity of marriage.




xxblushesxx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 9:49:38 AM)

I'm sorry it wasn't received by all in the way you intended it to.
I suggest from now on being VERY FORWARD with the fact that you are changing text to make a point. That way we're all on the same page and can discuss the merits of your thoughts.
I actually agreed with a lot of what you said. It was the execution itself that was flawed.




BanthaSamantha -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 9:55:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx

I'm sorry it wasn't received by all in the way you intended it to.
I suggest from now on being VERY FORWARD with the fact that you are changing text to make a point. That way we're all on the same page and can discuss the merits of your thoughts.
I actually agreed with a lot of what you said. It was the execution itself that was flawed.



Point taken.

I actually feel a little sorry for those whom were duped into believing that Bachmann actually said those ridiculous things. After all, no one who actually got the intent of the post would be so hypocritical to claim it was a lie; only those who were actually duped into believing it as true would do so.




xxblushesxx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 9:56:59 AM)

I never said it was a lie. It was misleading though.




BanthaSamantha -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 9:59:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx

I never said it was a lie. It was misleading though.


Misleading implies it was believable to begin with.




Owner59 -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 10:04:18 AM)

Don`t sweat it Sam,everyone knew what you meant .



Coincidentally and ironically,the ones mostly calling you a liar are our worst and most shameless offenders.



So bad in fact that to be insulted by them is to be complimented.




LadyPact -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 12:22:57 PM)

This really isn't a Politics and Religion debate.  The thread it's based on was. 

In reply to xxblushesxx you said

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha
Point taken.

I actually feel a little sorry for those whom were duped into believing that Bachmann actually said those ridiculous things. After all, no one who actually got the intent of the post would be so hypocritical to claim it was a lie; only those who were actually duped into believing it as true would do so.

I don't believe the above to be true, either.  I got the intent of the post, don't believe Myself to be a hypocrite, and still say it was untrue.  The premise that nobody would believe it doesn't change the bottom line.  You intentionally misquoted what the woman said on what you believed was your poetic license to do so to illustrate your point.

Here is My question for you.  If you decide that you have another point to illustrate, is it just as acceptable for you to go back and find one of My past statements, and change a few words around so you can come up with something that I didn't say?  Does plausibility of whatever you changed My statement to change the fact that your version isn't what I actually said?




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875