RE: The Nature of the Lie

RE: The Nature of the Lie (Full Version)

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

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 12:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact 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? Not on this site, its a TOS violation. However on most sites it is not only acceptable, its common, as long as the changed words are stricken out or its followed by a "FYP" flag. Its a quick and effective way to point out flaws in the original post, or differences of opinion.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 1:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact 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? [/color] I think you're missing the point of the discussion, and are hung up on the first part of the definition (A statement made with disregard for the truth). In order for something to be a lie, it must also be told with the intent that the listener will believe it. If, by altering your quotation, I was intending other people to actually believe you had said the altered words, I would be lying. If I did not intend such, it isn't a lie. If you ignore this part of the definition, sarcasm, jokes, satire, etc. all suddenly become lies when they really aren't. To put it simply, you're trying to equate "being inaccurate" with "being a lie." They are not the same thing. As to whether the topic of this thread meshes with the forum, I'd say that philosophy nicely dovetails into religion. After all, Thal shalt not bear false witness is one of the Ten Commandments.

LadyPact -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 2:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha I think you're missing the point of the discussion, and are hung up on the first part of the definition (A statement made with disregard for the truth). In order for something to be a lie, it must also be told with the intent that the listener will believe it. If, by altering your quotation, I was intending other people to actually believe you had said the altered words, I would be lying. If I did not intend such, it isn't a lie. If you ignore this part of the definition, sarcasm, jokes, satire, etc. all suddenly become lies when they really aren't. To put it simply, you're trying to equate "being inaccurate" with "being a lie." They are not the same thing. As to whether the topic of this thread meshes with the forum, I'd say that philosophy nicely dovetails into religion. After all, Thal shalt not bear false witness is one of the Ten Commandments. I'm beginning to think it fits more to politics. We certainly have enough politicians who want to rely on the 'I did this but it wasn't really what I meant to do'. LOL. In what other area do we judge a statement to be truth or falsehood by the interpretation of a third party? That logic leads to person A lies, knowing what they said is false, but if nobody believes it, the statement ceases to be a lie. It doesn't become the truth just because nobody believes it. The comment is still just as untrue when person A said it. The argument that satire, jokes, etc aren't really lies doesn't really hold because if the statement is untrue, it doesn't change what was said into the truth. The purpose of what is being said (entertainment) doesn't alter the basic fact that it's still a falsehood. For Me, it comes down to a basic question. Was your original post on the other thread honest? That's a yes or no question. Saying "no, but......" doesn't apply.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 2:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact In what other area do we judge a statement to be truth or falsehood by the interpretation of a third party? That logic leads to person A lies, knowing what they said is false, but if nobody believes it, the statement ceases to be a lie. It doesn't become the truth just because nobody believes it. The comment is still just as untrue when person A said it. The argument that satire, jokes, etc aren't really lies doesn't really hold because if the statement is untrue, it doesn't change what was said into the truth. The purpose of what is being said (entertainment) doesn't alter the basic fact that it's still a falsehood. You missed the point again. Allow me to pull out specific parts of your words to discuss. In what other area do we judge a statement to be truth or falsehood by the interpretation of a third party? No one (certainly not me) is advocating some sort of third party test. I am simply reminding you that in order for something to to be a lie, the potential liar has to intend the other person believe the falsehood. If there is no intent for someone else to believe the statement, then it is not a lie. The argument that satire, jokes, etc aren't really lies doesn't really hold because if the statement is untrue, it doesn't change what was said into the truth. The purpose of what is being said (entertainment) doesn't alter the basic fact that it's still a falsehood. Again, no one (certainly not me) is arguing that satire, jokes, etc. transmute an inaccurate statement into a truthful statement. I'll remind you that you're confusing two terms: falsehood and lie. They are not the same thing. A falsehood is something that only satisfies the first part of the definition of lie, while a lie satisfies both parts. If you say something with a disregard of the facts, you are stating a falsehood. In order for it to be a lie, you have to state it with the intent to deceive the other person into believing it.

LadyPact -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 2:58:44 PM)
I went an pulled the definition: 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement. 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. Obviously, we are not going to agree here. I will leave you to your justifications.

Owner59 -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 3:05:29 PM)
"find one of My past statements, and change a few words around" That too I believe is a TOS violation if done with a forum member`s quotes/posts. General reply: If Sam intended to deceive by her thread,that would be quite another thing. A lie by it`s nature is something committed in order to get (or avoid) something that would otherwise be unavailable(or unavoidable). Though there are plenty of examples of people purposely lying for the above reasons,that wasn`t what Sam was doing.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 5:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I went an pulled the definition: 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement. 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. Obviously, we are not going to agree here. I will leave you to your justifications. Why go through all this trouble when I already cited an accurate definition of the term? You'll note the first two definitions agree with the one I gave. The third and fourth don't, though that's probably because they are meant for different contexts.

imperatrixx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/4/2011 7:32:57 PM)
-FR- I understood that your post was satire. I could tell just by reading the post that Bachmann was talking about gay marriage and I hadn't read the original. I can sympathize with people who didn't realize that the post was satire, but not with people who believed that you were intentionally trying to lie and convince people that Bachmann had spoken out against interracial marriage. I do suggest that next time you add a bit at the bottom saying "this is satire, I am drawing a parallel to gay marriage" only because I've found this section of this website is full of people who will jump on any chance to argue and insult like ants who find a chicken bone. If I do post here I generally try to do so in a way that won't feed those people's ability to do so, because I lack patience for that sort of thing.

kalikshama -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 3:58:28 PM)
quote: I understood that your post was satire. I could tell just by reading the post that Bachmann was talking about gay marriage and I hadn't read the original. I can sympathize with people who didn't realize that the post was satire, but not with people who believed that you were intentionally trying to lie and convince people that Bachmann had spoken out against interracial marriage. I do suggest that next time you add a bit at the bottom saying "this is satire, I am drawing a parallel to gay marriage" only because I've found this section of this website is full of people who will jump on any chance to argue and insult like ants who find a chicken bone. If I do post here I generally try to do so in a way that won't feed those people's ability to do so, because I lack patience for that sort of thing. +1 - thanks for saving me the keystrokes. Eta - I did have a "WTF?" moment when I read the OP on that thread, but Tazzy cleared it up for me in post two.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 4:29:44 PM)
quote: Eta - I did have a "WTF?" moment when I read the OP on that thread, but Tazzy cleared it up for me in post two. I had that moment too. I read it out loud, told the man "There is no way she would have said this!" Then asked. It did make a lot of people think about it.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 4:43:04 PM)
you also have to consider why it was taken out of context by the people who accused you of lying.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 5:30:59 PM)
Oh fuck this. I actually did have a WTF moment, and did not know what exactly what was going on until she explained herself in the third post. I thought I had woken up in some alternate universe. I never accused her of lying, only of taking liberties with others' words. (which should never be done unless you say up front that's what you're doing.) I have NO agenda against her stance. In fact, I AGREE with her comparison. She was making a very good point, but (in my own opinion) should have been clear about what she was doing. A+ for the idea, C- for the execution. (by execution I mean not letting us know in advance what she was doing...the rest was very good.)

Lucylastic -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 5:33:48 PM)
sorry Blushes, I was talking about the first two people who called her a liar..in the actual original post, I apologise if you got a WTF moment, you were not the reason for my comment. I SHOULD have been clearer... you were NOT meant to be offended by my comment. I hope you will accept my apology.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 5:41:58 PM)
Please don't apologize. I just feel that people here are so ensconced (sp?) in their own side of the fence, that none of us can find a way to come together. I would love to see the people in our forums find ways to connect with those who aren't necessarily of the same views. I'm Christian and conservative. Most of my family is Christian and left leaning. I don't agree with them on many things, but we can find ways to discuss them without name calling and disliking each other. : ) I want to bring everyone into "my family" whether we agree or not.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 5:49:53 PM)
I prefer to keep out of most religious threads (99%) myself. Honestly I felt the need to apologise, to you.....because you actually have my respect on many many many issues, and if I offended you unintentionally, then yeah Im sorry.

xxblushesxx -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 6:46:40 PM)
Thank you Lucy, I appreciate that more than you know. I am a bit of a pollyanna, so I still believe we can all respect and love each other but still have different views. You're kind of encouraging that view, so...[;)][:D]

Lucylastic -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 7:13:00 PM)
Thankyou:) that means a lot too, and yeah I get what you are saying,outside of P&R I try to treat people with the respect I would want given, until proven otherwise. [:)][;)][;)]

tazzygirl -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/5/2011 7:38:22 PM)
Im not allowed out of P&R.

kalikshama -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/6/2011 5:54:32 AM)
[image]http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/smilies/spitcoffee.gif[/image]

xssve -> RE: The Nature of the Lie (12/6/2011 6:03:45 AM)
Since it's about politics, you have to categorize lies - an article like the Onion is particular type of lie, fiction, which is not intended to deceive but to entertain. There are "White Lies", intended to spare someones feelings: "no, that dress does not make your ass look fat". In some cases, public figures lying about affairs may be charitably thought to be lying in order to save their families embarrassment, this is often a judgment call, and leads us to: Spin, probably the most common sort of political lie, usually more akin to a half truth, it's often employed as a smear tactic or to fend off criticism making something sound better or worse than it actually is. It's a slippery slope however, and there is a point when spin devolves into outright lying. Then there is the unsupported conjecture or allegation, offering an opinion or "feeling" but stating it as if it were a proven fact. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "it's a an accepted tenet in ethics that to assert a thing which one does not know for certain to be true is the same as lying". Finally, there is bullshit, which the Bush administration at least, manufactured in a steady stream - lying is when you know the truth but attempt to conceal it or call it something else, bullshit is when you don't care what the truth is.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625