There is a chronic attitude that is rampant within the Left to refer to anything they disagree with as a lie. It is everywhere amongst the left wing bloggers.
There's also a chronic attitude that only the "other guys" do this or that. There are also folks on the right who do that. Name calling is inherent to hostile partisans, not any particular ideology.
I repeat it believing it is true I am NOT lying; perhaps the original poster was lying, but when I repeated it it was not a lie, it was an untrue statement. Two different things.
I continue to disagree. I agree that you are not lying but insist that the untrue statement can still be a lie. If it was promulgated as a lie by some political operative with the intent of rousing outrage among the faithful and those faithful repeat it blindly to further their cause, then what they are saying is still a lie even though they may not be lying.
Let me try an analogy. If a disreputable practitioner produces something he claims is a miracle drug but is really a placebo and his followers, believing in the drug, pass it along to patients, the followers may not be lying but the product is still a placebo.
To know whether someone is lying you must know whether there was an intent to mislead.
Which is exactly why I never accuse anyone of lying unless I have certainty and absolute proof. It's one of those hurtful words that people throw around too loosely. It is totally non-constructive. It is distracting from the substance and even absolute proof won't convince a true believer. Even if it did, he wouldn't admit it. So it's not useful for anything constructive.
I judge that not to be a lie.
Me, too.
Because it is an obvious intent to mislead (since any of the proposed legislation would substantially increase the cost of health care in the U.S.).
He could have believed that, too. After all, in the beginning there were opinions out there, opinions of prominent economists and advocates, who claimed that their approach would save money. He may still believe it or he may now be in too deep to waver, but it's way too possible IMO that he believed it to justify calling him a liar. You don't have proof, only suspicion.
I wouldn't argue with you, though, if you wanted to call the claim a lie. Calling him a liar, not so much. |
