Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Yeah, we're not on the same paragraph exactly, but at least on the same page.
Last edited:
Lying vs. simply being wrong
- Thread starter 1337m4n
- Start date
-
- Tags
- truth movement
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I have never had that problem.
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2007
- Messages
- 989
Yeah, we're not on the same paragraph exactly, but at least on the same page.
Maybe the same paragraph, but not the same sentence heh.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
No, the foregoing is not an accurate definition of a lie. As Metullus pointed out above, a person need not know the actual truth in order to tell a lie. A person need only know of the falsity of what he is saying in order for it to constitute a lie. Thus, your points #2, 3, and 4 do not properly follow from #1, and the totality of your definition is faulty.
I would also add that willful blindness - such that one actively refuses to consider any data or information that could potentially cause one to have to reconsider the veracity of one's statement - can be just as dishonest as telling a deliberate lie because it can render one's "innocent" misrepresentation into a "deliberate" misrepresentation. I.e. It is no less dishonest to tell a falsehood without express knowledge of its falsity if one deliberately closes one's eyes and ears to available knowledge in order to be able to maintain the facade of "innocent" misrepresentation.
In other words, when one knows that there is a risk that a statement one makes is not true, but deliberately closes his eyes and ears to available information with which to ascertain the truth or falsity of the statement, it is still dishonest.
As I set out above, I disagree with your definition of what constitutes a lie. However, I agree with you that the word "liar" could certainly be used with less frequency.
A call for civility is never a bad thing.
I would tend to agree for the most part with LashL and Hyperviolet's thoughts here. In my view, for someone to be a "Liar" they have to knowingly make false statements. If you honestly believe that the information you are presenting is true, you're not lying, no matter how mistaken you might be. If you have every reason to doubt the veracity of your position, but persist in believing, you might be an idiot, but not a liar.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Well, here is my take on it. Most of them are either terminally stupid or egregious liars, quite likely a mix of the two. There are a few decent and honest people who have been convinced that something is amiss and who have a bias to distrust the government in anything and who moreover are so honest themselves that they cannot imagine that anybody would lie to them about something like this.
It seems to me that "dishonest" is a very accurate description to describe many in the Truth Movement; either deliberate dishonesty (i.e. a lie, or at least knowlingly misleading) or intellectual dishonesty (a failure to apply sufficient rigour to the arguments being presented). In many cases the reason for the latter does appear to be due - at least in part - to a lack of education and understanding about the issues at hand.
It's a good thing I'm perfect, so it is....
ETA: As I mused this over later, I realised that the description which our institute would use to describe Gage's comments would be "reckless conduct" or possibly "bringing the profession into disrepute". As if architects' own in-house fighting could be any more disreputable.....
It's a good thing I'm perfect, so it is....
ETA: As I mused this over later, I realised that the description which our institute would use to describe Gage's comments would be "reckless conduct" or possibly "bringing the profession into disrepute". As if architects' own in-house fighting could be any more disreputable.....
Last edited:
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Those who deliberately introduce a falsehood into the public forum are liars.
This would take in Bunel, AJones, Bollyn, D.B. Smith and all white nationalists.
Those who resist any logical explanation and can present no countering evidence are probably quite stupid.
Those who earnestly believe the woo-woo, on the basis that they have seen no evidence to the contrary are just ignorant.
If their ignorance is not ammendable by reasoned presentation of factual evidence, they are not only ignorant, but stupid and/or nuts.
This would take in Bunel, AJones, Bollyn, D.B. Smith and all white nationalists.
Those who resist any logical explanation and can present no countering evidence are probably quite stupid.
Those who earnestly believe the woo-woo, on the basis that they have seen no evidence to the contrary are just ignorant.
If their ignorance is not ammendable by reasoned presentation of factual evidence, they are not only ignorant, but stupid and/or nuts.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
I personally would expand the definition to include those who make true statements while not believing them. It comes down to the intention to deceive rather than any particular objective measure of the truth value of the statements.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
What I find dishonest about truthers is the practice, not of lying, but of deliberately concealing the substance of what they're trying to say. There's a perfect example in Kenneth Kuttler's letter to JON-ES in May that illustrates this.
Kuttler is ostensibly calculating collapse times for the Twin Towers with various assumptions and comparing them to the actual collapse times. He starts by estimating the actual collapse times. In his estimates he twice refers to a video in which the collapse finishes 12 seconds after a particular stage in the collapse. He doesn't say how far into the collapse that stage occurred. His time for comparison, therefore, is greater than 12 seconds, but he never gives an actual value; he therefore leaves the reader with the mistaken impression that 12 seconds was the collapse time. He then goes on to calculate a collapse time with momentum transfer only, and having done so comments that it is shorter than 9 seconds, which he takes as the "official" collapse time from the NIST report. The end result of this is that Kuttler has carefully avoided stating any falsehood, but has contrived to leave the reader with the impression that the collapse time was less than it should have been.
In many ways this is even more dishonest than simply lying. Including a false statement could be interpreted as a mistake, but deliberately concealing one's own conclusions and misrepresenting one's own work, to the point that it's internally inconsistent but appears not to be, is not subject to that interpretation. It's subtle and hard to spot sometimes, but it's deeply dishonest and it's far from rare.
Dave
Kuttler is ostensibly calculating collapse times for the Twin Towers with various assumptions and comparing them to the actual collapse times. He starts by estimating the actual collapse times. In his estimates he twice refers to a video in which the collapse finishes 12 seconds after a particular stage in the collapse. He doesn't say how far into the collapse that stage occurred. His time for comparison, therefore, is greater than 12 seconds, but he never gives an actual value; he therefore leaves the reader with the mistaken impression that 12 seconds was the collapse time. He then goes on to calculate a collapse time with momentum transfer only, and having done so comments that it is shorter than 9 seconds, which he takes as the "official" collapse time from the NIST report. The end result of this is that Kuttler has carefully avoided stating any falsehood, but has contrived to leave the reader with the impression that the collapse time was less than it should have been.
In many ways this is even more dishonest than simply lying. Including a false statement could be interpreted as a mistake, but deliberately concealing one's own conclusions and misrepresenting one's own work, to the point that it's internally inconsistent but appears not to be, is not subject to that interpretation. It's subtle and hard to spot sometimes, but it's deeply dishonest and it's far from rare.
Dave
I'd be interested in hearing how one can do that.
I'm guessing you see it like this:
Person A tells a lie. They know it is false, but they attempt to pass it off as truth.
Person B believes A, and reiterates the statement, believing it to be truth.
I'm guessing (as I said) that your position is that the statement as given by Person B is still a lie, even though B is not a liar.
My position would be that this cannot be so.
If we take person C, who came to the same conclusion as B, simply through (say) faulty reasoning, rather than being lied to, then would they be relating a lie? If so....how? Does "untrue" become "lie" simply because someone, somewhere, at some point has related the statement as a lie?
Unless this is the case, then we have a situation where C can say something untrue and it not be a lie, whereas should B say it, it is a lie....despite both of them saying the same thing and both of them believing it to be true.
It would be correct to say to B that their statement is false and that they were lied to, but it would not be correct to say that B's statement is a lie.
But I'm still only guessing on your position....I'd be far more interested in hearing you explain how you see it
At what point does willful ignorance turn into a lie?
A : "Einstein never got a Ph.D."
B : "Yes, he did, in 1905."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. From the University of Zurich. Here's Wikipedia's take on it."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's the New York Times obituary that lists it."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's a copy of his dissertation from the Zurich library."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's a certified copy of his actual diploma."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's the actual diploma which I borrowed from his heirs."
A : "No, he didn't."
B : "Yes, he did. Here's the official attested statement from the University of Zurich with notarial seal."
Did A tell any lies in that exchange?
Yep.
It would be correct to say to B that their statement is false and that they were lied to, but it would not be correct to say that B's statement is a lie.
But I'm still only guessing on your position....I'd be far more interested in hearing you explain how you see it
Having once been told, a lie is still a lie. It's still a deliberate untruth, whether the person repeating it believes it or not.
Do I have a way of absolutely determining whether I am speaking to a B or a C? No.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
I find that the use of clipped quotes can be so close to dishonesty as to equate to lying. When they post quotes from a fireman describing explosions, but clip the portion where he describes what he concludes caused the explosions, that's obviously dishonest. Sometimes "..." can be a lie.
However, since it's rare that they go to the original sources, the original lie (or "lie" if you prefer) is often hidden in the mists of time.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah, I'm with Metullus on this one, l337.
I'm just guessing here, but I am fairly sure you do not trust the Troofers.
I prefer "ignorant, infinitissimal nematodes engorged with fetid fecal material which they propel vomitously upon their surroundings" because I prefer being polite to them, whatever their character flaws.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,606
Only if you have the capacity to understand what you are being told. A truther is lied to by the likes of Ross in regards to physics, so he parrots the claim, even if though he is incapable of understanding what Ross is saying. So when someone proves Ross wrong, it has no meaning to the truther because he did not understand the information to begin with. Therefore, the individual falls back on the position of believing Ross because that is what he wants to believe. The truther is not lying, he just does not understand.
Others fall into the cateegory that someone described above - delusional. They have their own beliefs and you will never be able to convince them how wrong they really are.