Lying vs. simply being wrong

[1337m4n]

Gonna play peacekeeper here for a second. It seems the most common attack I see in the whole 9/11 debate is to accuse one's opponent of "lying". BOTH sides do it. I've been called a liar a number of times by the folks at Pilots for Truth, and seen Truthers call lots of other debunkers liars.

But, I see all to much of it here, too. Our own skeptics accusing our visiting Truthers of lying. Sometimes it's not even provoked.

I just want to stress for BOTH sides here exactly what constitutes a "lie". A lie is not simply being wrong. If you ask a layman what the largest desert in the world is, he would probably reply with "the Sahara". The correct answer is, technically speaking, Antarctica. Is he lying? No. Nobody would say that he's lying. He's an innocent victim of a popular stereotype of what constitutes a "desert" (i.e. it has to be hot).

Do you see my point? There's a difference between a genuine LIE and being wrong, misinformed, or deluded. In order for a statement to qualify as a genuine lie, it must meet the following criteria:

1) The statement must be false or misleading

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.


That said, I'm sure there have been genuine lies among the Truth Movement. For instance, the assertion that Ben Chertoff and Mike Chertoff are cousins raises a red flag. But, not everyone who makes that argument is necessarily "lying"--most of them are just parrots repeating whatever Alex Jones tells them to. In which case, the only real liar would be Jones himself. To accuse the average Truther peon of actively lying just isn't right. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're forgetful, maybe they place too much trust in the Truther ringleaders, and maybe they're deluding themselves. But I doubt very many of them are genuine liars. So if you're going to make such an accusation, please provide proof.

That goes for you Truthers, too. Do you honestly think, say, Mark Roberts is a liar? Do you honestly think he deliberately goes around peddling information he knows to be false? Or, is he just (assuming the conspiracy theory is correct) simply wrong about things? If you're going to accuse any of us of being liars, please provide proof.

Let's be civil, folks.

 

[twinstead]

I actually think very few truthers are liars.

 

[JAStewart]

IE:

Dylan, Bermass, Jones, Fetzer, P'doh

The list goes on

 

[nicepants]

A more common tactic I see is when a debunker claims that someone is wrong, the truther takes that to mean the truther thinks that person is not just wrong, but lying.

They don't seem to understand that it is possible for someone to be wrong without lying.

 

[Calcas]

That goes for you Truthers, too. Do you honestly think, say, Mark Roberts is a liar? Do you honestly think he deliberately goes around peddling information he knows to be false?
Let's be civil, folks.

Good post.

But, I firmly believe that many truthers really DO think Mark (and others) are knowingly lying and part of some disinfo campaign.

And, if they believe it, they're not lying. They're simply deluded.

 

[rwguinn]

Gonna play peacekeeper here for a second. It seems the most common attack I see in the whole 9/11 debate is to accuse one's opponent of "lying". BOTH sides do it. I've been called a liar a number of times by the folks at Pilots for Truth, and seen Truthers call lots of other debunkers liars.

But, I see all to much of it here, too. Our own skeptics accusing our visiting Truthers of lying. Sometimes it's not even provoked.

I just want to stress for BOTH sides here exactly what constitutes a "lie". A lie is not simply being wrong. If you ask a layman what the largest desert in the world is, he would probably reply with "the Sahara". The correct answer is, technically speaking, Antarctica. Is he lying? No. Nobody would say that he's lying. He's an innocent victim of a popular stereotype of what constitutes a "desert" (i.e. it has to be hot).

Do you see my point? There's a difference between a genuine LIE and being wrong, misinformed, or deluded. In order for a statement to qualify as a genuine lie, it must meet the following criteria:

1) The statement must be false or misleading

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.


That said, I'm sure there have been genuine lies among the Truth Movement. For instance, the assertion that Ben Chertoff and Mike Chertoff are cousins raises a red flag. But, not everyone who makes that argument is necessarily "lying"

yes, they are. Parroting positions ad infinitum is lying, if you do no research

--most of them are just parrots repeating whatever Alex Jones tells them to. In which case, the only real liar would be Jones himself. To accuse the average Truther peon of actively lying just isn't right. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they're forgetful, maybe they place too much trust in the Truther ringleaders, and maybe they're deluding themselves. But I doubt very many of them are genuine liars. So if you're going to make such an accusation, please provide proof.

That goes for you Truthers, too. Do you honestly think, say, Mark Roberts is a liar? Do you honestly think he deliberately goes around peddling information he knows to be false? Or, is he just (assuming the conspiracy theory is correct) simply wrong about things? If you're going to accuse any of us of being liars, please provide proof.

Let's be civil, folks.

5. If you have been directed to factual data which contradicts your statement, and/or you have refused to evaluate any data contrary to your position, or you are simply spouting off without performing any research, then points 3 and 4 above become moot (not Mute!), and you are a liar.

 

[Molinaro]

If you make a claim, and that claim is refuted. Then you ignore the refutation and repeat the claim stating that it is something you already proved, then you are lying.

That is what I see troofers do over and over and over again. They completely ignore all counter points and repeat what they've said, either in another thread or later on in the same thread.

That is lying. If you've done nothing to counter points raised against you, you are not wrong, you are a lier when you repeat those points.

 

[Metullus]

1) The statement must be false or misleading

Yup.

2) The person making the statement must know the real truth

Nope. The person need only know that the statement being made is not the truth. One does not need to know the truth of every matter in order to recognize falsehood. I do not, for example, know the whereabouts of Amelia Earhart, but I do know that any claim I might make that she is in my closet is not true.

Indeed, this seems to be the bulwark behind which our CT friends hide from reality: they do not know the truth of some matters therefore anything can be presented in its stead.

3) The person making the statement must be consciously aware of that truth at the moment he makes it (if I temporarily misremember where I left your keys, am I lying when I give you the wrong location?)

Again, nope (see above). The person making the statement must be consciously aware of the falsity of the statement at the moment he makes it.

4) The person making the statement must himself accept the truth (if I have yet to admit the truth to myself, am I lying when I fail to admit it to someone else?) In other words, cases of genuine self-delusion or thought/memory suppression aren't true lies.

1, 2, & 3 above would seem to make this redundant.

 

[beachnut]

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

Those in 9/11 truth try to lead you to believe something that is not true. Liars. They meet the definition.

They are wrong and liars. They present ideas that are wrong, false. They do this on purpose to mislead other. They call it spreading the truth. Liars.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

i think the point 1337 is trying to make is that to be a liar you must knowingly present false or misleading information, to say some dont know they are liars precludes them from being liars

 

[jhunter1163]

Seems to me that this is a semantic debate on intellectual dishonesty vs. lying. If I claim that WTC7 fell in 6 seconds, even though I know it was actually more like 18, but I qualify my statement by saying "I don't count from when the penthouse fell", am I lying? I know it's intellectually dishonest, but is it a lie?

 

[beachnut]

i think the point 1337 is trying to make is that to be a liar you must knowingly present false or misleading information, to say some dont know they are liars precludes them from being liars

I have a broad definition of liar for 9/11 truth. The more I read what a lie is, the more the liars of 9/11 truth fit. They are doing it on purpose to spread the "truth".

I agree my definition is sarcastically applied, I thought most truthers would rather be called a liar than dumber than dirt doltish ignoramus. (beam weapons? dustification? nukes? no planes? etc, etc, etc.)

 

[Drudgewire]

I think the difference is between being purposely dishonest and being deluded. I'd imagine the bulk of CT'ers, confronted with evidence that totally destroys their argument, can convince themselves said evidence exists in a vaccuum, and because it's a cog in some great conspiracy it isn't a great leap to assume it was specifically planted there to aid in the cover up. This particular one makes that even easier for lots of them consciously and subconsciously because it plays right into pre-existing feelings on the current administration and war which nobody really likes a whole lot.

It's still dishonesty, but because it starts out as self-dishonesty it's not so much out-and-out lying as it is pure delusion.

The LIARS, on the other hand, know they're dishing out crap. Whether they do it to be self-aggrandizing, to further an agenda, or to make a few bucks... they in no way believe what they're shovelling. It's no different from any other con, and the more people they can get to fall for it the better.

The real issue, however, is whether one is any worse than the other. And as far as perception goes, I'd have to say "no." Willful or not, they're fostering lies which hurt the country as well as the victims and heroes of 9/11. And I have no more respect nor any less distain for a dunderhead than I do for a con artist.

ETA: Holy crap . I certainly live up to my custom title a lot.

 

[Architect]

i think the point 1337 is trying to make is that to be a liar you must knowingly present false or misleading information, to say some dont know they are liars precludes them from being liars

Seems fair enough to me.

I think that we get stupidity, intellectual dishonesty, and lying confused at times.

 

[Hyperviolet]

9/11 truth, all of them are liars. Some just do not know it, they are wrong and liars.

Those in 9/11 truth try to lead you to believe something that is not true. Liars. They meet the definition.

They are wrong and liars. They present ideas that are wrong, false. They do this on purpose to mislead other. They call it spreading the truth. Liars.

Lying is not synonymous with ignorance, Beachnut.
All truthers are not liars. Your assessment is grossly over-simplified.

I'm sure you have said things that are false in your time, i wouldn't call that grounds to label you a liar.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'm sure you have said things that are false in your time, i wouldn't call that grounds to label you a liar.

Everyone has been wrong. But once you've been shown glaring evidence you COULD VERY WELL BE wrong, to continue to bleat your same argument without changing it at does have liar overtones.

 

[CHF]

While many twoofers lie, I think most of them repeat long-debunked claims simply because they're so paranoid that they trust only themselves and fellow twoofers.

This mindset acts as a constant barrier between them and truth since all opposing engineers, demolition pros and witnesses are instantly dismissed as pawns of the establishment.

So in other words, it's usually not a case of twoofers lying so much as it is twoofers just being paranoid and really, really stupid.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Everyone has been wrong. But once you've been shown glaring evidence you COULD VERY WELL BE wrong, to continue to bleat your same argument without changing it at does have liar overtones.

It just gets lost on this forum sometimes.
It really does.


This forum is full of intellectual people, others aren't quite blessed with the ability to differentiate between good and bad sources, between truths and falsehoods. These people don't understand something technical like the NIST report. What they do 'understand' is that WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. That actually makes sense to them, believe it or not.

I wouldn't call a creationist a liar for not believing in evolution and the evidence for it. Would you?
In that case, I would say my vocabulary is worryingly limited should I choose such a word to articulate my thoughts.

Look at Mikey Metz, he honestly believed what he was saying. He could go to bed with a clear head knowing he was fighting for what he believed was real.
He luckily could see the errors in his thinking.
Not everyone has that ability. Beachnut's assessment that every truther is a liar is inaccurate.

 

[Drudgewire]

I wouldn't call a creationist a liar for not believing in evolution and the evidence for it. Would you?

Not at all. Conversely, someone trying to debate the pros of intelligent design and claiming it's not a religious issue might as well have his pants on fire.

So I'd go so far as to say not all people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are liars. But as far as those who come to the JREF to spout their nonsense, GET THE REAL ANSWER HANDED TO THEM ON A PLATTER, and then in the next breath continue to push the same gibberish with nothing more than a couple of latin words or the old standby "strawman?" Well, that may not make them liars...

...but for the life of me I can't find a better word for it.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Not at all. Conversely, someone trying to debate the pros of intelligent design and claiming it's not a religious issue might as well have his pants on fire.

So I'd go so far as to say not all people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are liars. But as far as those who come to the JREF to spout their nonsense, GET THE REAL ANSWER HANDED TO THEM ON A PLATTER, and then in the next breath continue to push the same gibberish with nothing more than a couple of latin words or the old standby "strawman?" Well, that may not make them liars...

...but for the life of me I can't find a better word for it.

I agree with what you're saying, Drudgewire.

However, that's my contention: To say all truthers are liars is inaccurate.