Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (149340)	10/27/2004 9:12:58 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Jewel, we must have different interpretation of the basic words." Yes we do. You have failed to take the eligibility requirements on this topic seriously. You are not allowed to determine the context of another man's statements when labeling him a liar. You must understand the context he intended for his comment and determine from that whether he intended to deceive others or not. I have no problem telling someone else that I don't believe them. This is night and day different than calling them a liar. In the first case, I own the determination as based on a doubt that I feel at the gut level. In the second case, the onus is upon me to produce irrefutable proof that the person not only uttered a false statement but that he did so with the intent to deceive others. Mis-speaking, a poor grasp of language to convey clear meaning, or being uninformed about a topic that one is speaking on does not in and of itself qualify as perpetrating a lie. Calling someone a liar is not the same as the usual name calling like telling someone they are a dolt, moron, pinhead, etc. Although not kind, those names are typically used simply to add flames to one's comments. Liar, on the other hand, is a challenge to ones honor. It is impossible for a person to prove that he does not lie; and if he denies it, the onus is upon the accuser to come forward with irrefutable evidence that the speaker has committed the intentional act of deception via the lie.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (149340)	10/28/2004 4:17:18 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you do not believe this statement to be factually correct, how is it that you still do not believe it to be a lie or that Bush has lied? very curious, Sun Tzu Other people interpret the facts differently as you know. However, even if it could be proven empirically that Bush's statement was inaccurate, that does not automatically make the man a liar. You can be wrong without being a liar. As you are fond of saying, a lie is a lie is a lie. I lie is an utterance of falsehood with the intent to deceive. It is nothing more and nothing less. Some things don't qualify and are simply not a lie not a lie not a lie. As I have pointed out now multiple times, we are rarely able to catch someone in a lie. That is why the behavior is so common. In order to prove that someone lied we must be able to prove that they knew their statement was false and that they intended to deceive us in the process. Having a difference in perspective, opinion, or a side has NOTHING to do with whether your adversary is a liar or you are. Having more information than someone else may help your argument and may even defeat a position less well founded. That does not make the other person a liar. Being able to show the flawed logic of someone’s idea does not expose that person as a liar, it simply exposes the flaws in their thinking. Not being able to prove that someone is a liar does automatically mean the person has been truthful … far from it. However, a lie is a lie is a lie… Every kind of error a man can make, however, does NOT make him a liar… only lying does… and the onus is upon you, the accuser, to prove it. Lying is an issue of personal honor. You must come to an understanding of that before you will ever be able to have an intelligent discussion with me on the topic. You have not demonstrated an understanding of that at all. You have only demonstrated that you can prove certain things that serve you political perspective through a particular approach to analysis of facts.