So, if I understand this crazy-ass thread correctly, Joe is contending that being wrong makes you a liar?
Not at all. I'm just trying to get away from what I consider an overwrought reliance on the dictionary phrase "intent to deceive". I don't think that "intent to deceive" carries within it the loophole "if you believe it, then it's not a lie". I also think that you can infer intent from facts and circumstances, i.e. you don't necessarily need a written memo saying, "I intend to deceive when I make this statement." I said before that a mistake of fact is not a lie.
So, then, say I'm a scientist back 500 years ago, before we knew what blood vessels were. If you were a student back then, and I told you that the blood in your body just oozed around aimlessly, like you were a giant sack of fluid, am I a liar?
Not at all. Your statement would have been reasonable given the facts and circumstances.
I just don't want to have this situation any longer: Say, for instance, Keith Olbermann calls GWB on more Iraq lies. I don't want someone to come along and say, "Well, he might have believed what he said when he said it, so it wasn't a lie.", or "Well, we don't have a signed and notarized memo countersigned by three witnesses written in his own hand with the statement, "I know I'm lying when I make these statements, and by making these statements, I intend to deceive.", so it wasn't a lie."
The problem with "intent to deceive" is that it's hard to prove empirically, since, as you've pointed out, you really can't get inside someone's head. However, having that intent IS necessary for it to truly be a lie, or else the word loses all meaning.
The way I look at it, if someone has full knowledge of the facts of a given situation, or at least access to sufficient facts to make the reasonable assertion, but continues to make an assertion that is fallacious or is not supported by the facts, they are either stupid or a liar. The problem is separating those two, and that is what requires the weighing of circumstances and, ultimately, the guessing of motivation. You can only look at the situation around a particular assertion and essentially intuit whether or not there is a lie going on. In non-court situations (where you can demonstrate lies with testimony), you kind of have to "feel" a lie.
Unfortunately, there's no way to prove that. It's entirely plausible that someone was just ignorant, or ill-informed, or was thoroughly convinced that no lie was being perpetrated. In cases like that, where there is ambiguity as to the intent behind a given deception, very often the status of intent isn't the important part, as that is often tantamount to finger-pointing. Yes, it's often necessary to lay blame at the feet of the guilty party, but when you can't determine guilt in a situation, you have to emphasize the more important lessons and draw out whatever other lessons stem from the inability to place blame. In cases like GWB's inconsistent statements about Iraq, we can probably make a good case for him being a liar, but there's still a chance that he's just dumb or ill-informed.
Really, the greatest lesson is that, generally, politicians are all massaging the truth to one degree or another; hell, sometimes it's needed. The problem is when there's an important truth that gets massaged a bit too much; we need to focus on learning how to discern the truth in those situations instead of figuring out how to blame people for lying (or looking like liars).
The problem with "intent to deceive" is that it's hard to prove empirically, since, as you've pointed out, you really can't get inside someone's head. However, having that intent IS necessary for it to truly be a lie, or else the word loses all meaning.
The thing that has me all a-twitter is this forgiveness I'm seeing for the liars who "may have believed it when they said it". That robs the word of its meaning as well. If I could just have someone agree with me on this point, I'd stop writing about it.
Like, for instance, can we all agree that this guy is a big fat liar?
Recently, in the book Dead Certain, GWB said that it was his policy not to dsband the Iraqi army and that he was surpised when Paul Bremer allowed it. Bremer has letters showing GWB knew and apporved of the disbanding. Surely that is a lie.
The way I look at it, if someone has full knowledge of the facts of a given situation, or at least access to sufficient facts to make the reasonable assertion, but continues to make an assertion that is fallacious or is not supported by the facts, they are either stupid or a liar. The problem is separating those two, and that is what requires the weighing of circumstances and, ultimately, the guessing of motivation. You can only look at the situation around a particular assertion and essentially intuit whether or not there is a lie going on.
I agree. That's what I've been saying.
The problem is when there's an important truth that gets massaged a bit too much . . .
Like Iraq. Be sure to watch that Olbermann video. He was on FIRE!
. . . we need to focus on learning how to discern the truth in those situations instead of figuring out how to blame people for lying (or looking like liars).
I agree again, but a little blaming can be cathartic. I'm all for hanging some guy's hide on the shed before we get down to trying to fix things.
"Lying" is if you know it isn't the truth but say it anyway.
They can both cause harm, but one is passive ignorance and the other actively going against the truth. It's easier, I think, for people to accept the "we were mistaken" line than to find out that they were knowingly being told something that was not the truth. There is often the speaker's self-interest involved with lying: The lying person can often seek to gain from the falsehood. Nobody makes mistakes willingly, by their very nature a mistake is unintentional and often harmful to the person who committed it. If they do or say the wrong thing, and know better, they must have a hidden agenda, and then it is not a mistake, but a lie.
Now, surely everyone will agree with me that the things Hillary Clinton said about Bosnia were just straight-up lies.
I'm currently grinding my teeth in annoyance whenever I read some story about Bush saying the war in Iraq is really good and there is real progress. T_T
Clinton lying about Bosnia just makes me cringe. More reasons to add to why I don't really care for her.
The media has created an impossible environment for politicians and candidates. There is an unrealistic expectation for them to be perfect people with no faults. Thus, they must lie in order to avoid negative publicity. However, there is also an expectation that they will never lie. It's a total trap. You can either be perfect and not lie, or you can lie and never get caught.
Maybe if we set more realistic expectations instead of believing in the trap of the sensationalist media, we'll be better off.
Thus, they must lie in order to avoid negative publicity. However, there is also an expectation that they will never lie. It's a total trap. You can either be perfect and not lie, or you can lie and never get caught.
Or, they can accept negative publicity for their actions, as honorable men should. Notice how our new governor came right out like "I had an affair! Just lettin' ya know!" We need more of that.
Clinton doesn't understand the new world. You can't lie about something that happened in public. Period. Youtube will get you. It speaks not so much about her character (politics is politics), but of her old world view.
I don't see politicians as perfect people by any means. What bugs me is when people know they lied and don't come out and admit they were at fault. If people had the balls to just admit they lied, I'd respect that more than trying to hide behind their lies or try to spin doctor their way out of stuff.
I don't see politicians as perfect people by no means. What bugs me is when people know they lied and don't come out and admit they were at fault. If people had the balls to just admit they lied, I'd respect that more than trying to hide behind their lies or try to spin doctor their way out of stuff.
I agree. I'm even more horrified aby the explanation than the lie. "Sleep deprivation"? Aren't you the one who says she'll do good with the 3:00 a.m. telephone call?
The media has created an impossible environment for politicians and candidates. There is an unrealistic expectation for them to be perfect people with no faults. Thus, they must lie in order to avoid negative publicity. However, there is also an expectation that they will never lie. It's a total trap. You can either be perfect and not lie, or you can lie and never get caught.
Maybe if we set more realistic expectations instead of believing in the trap of the sensationalist media, we'll be better off.
I don't expect politicians. What bothers me about this Clinton thing is that there was no reason for her to lie except for self-exaggeration. It's not like she was trying to cover up some misdeed or anything; if she just said "I went to Bosnia while it was still a combat zone" I don't think anyone would have cared. But she had to come up with this bullshit about being under sniper fire. She wasn't lying to avoid negative publicity; she was lying to make herself seem badass.
I also want to point out one thing which bothers me the most. There is a very easy question to ask that nobody is asking.
Even if you did come under sniper fire, how does that make you more qualified to be president? If getting shot at makes you a better candidate, I've got a lot of punk kids in the bad part of town who will make better candidates than anyone currently in the running.
I also want to point out one thing which bothers me the most. There is a very easy question to ask that nobody is asking.
Even if you did come under sniper fire, how does that make you more qualified to be president? If getting shot at makes you a better candidate, I've got a lot of punk kids in the bad part of town who will make better candidates than anyone currently in the running.
She gaffed. She may have thought it would make her seem more qualified in the stress department, but it backfired on her badly. Sen. Clinton is not nearly as experienced as she claims to be, and so will probably make quite a few mistakes a little bit down the road. The sheer arrogance of her claim, that being married to a President is enough of a test of your political prowess, is what makes me dislike her. Also the fact her husband is dragging his name through the mud on her behalf.
Comments
I just don't want to have this situation any longer: Say, for instance, Keith Olbermann calls GWB on more Iraq lies. I don't want someone to come along and say, "Well, he might have believed what he said when he said it, so it wasn't a lie.", or "Well, we don't have a signed and notarized memo countersigned by three witnesses written in his own hand with the statement, "I know I'm lying when I make these statements, and by making these statements, I intend to deceive.", so it wasn't a lie."
The way I look at it, if someone has full knowledge of the facts of a given situation, or at least access to sufficient facts to make the reasonable assertion, but continues to make an assertion that is fallacious or is not supported by the facts, they are either stupid or a liar. The problem is separating those two, and that is what requires the weighing of circumstances and, ultimately, the guessing of motivation. You can only look at the situation around a particular assertion and essentially intuit whether or not there is a lie going on. In non-court situations (where you can demonstrate lies with testimony), you kind of have to "feel" a lie.
Unfortunately, there's no way to prove that. It's entirely plausible that someone was just ignorant, or ill-informed, or was thoroughly convinced that no lie was being perpetrated. In cases like that, where there is ambiguity as to the intent behind a given deception, very often the status of intent isn't the important part, as that is often tantamount to finger-pointing. Yes, it's often necessary to lay blame at the feet of the guilty party, but when you can't determine guilt in a situation, you have to emphasize the more important lessons and draw out whatever other lessons stem from the inability to place blame. In cases like GWB's inconsistent statements about Iraq, we can probably make a good case for him being a liar, but there's still a chance that he's just dumb or ill-informed.
Really, the greatest lesson is that, generally, politicians are all massaging the truth to one degree or another; hell, sometimes it's needed. The problem is when there's an important truth that gets massaged a bit too much; we need to focus on learning how to discern the truth in those situations instead of figuring out how to blame people for lying (or looking like liars).
Like, for instance, can we all agree that this guy is a big fat liar?
How about this guy? He should be the baseline.
Recently, in the book Dead Certain, GWB said that it was his policy not to dsband the Iraqi army and that he was surpised when Paul Bremer allowed it. Bremer has letters showing GWB knew and apporved of the disbanding. Surely that is a lie. I agree. That's what I've been saying. Like Iraq. Be sure to watch that Olbermann video. He was on FIRE!
Bonus: Timeline of Republican Corruption in 2007
Cest la vie, right?
"Lying" is if you know it isn't the truth but say it anyway.
They can both cause harm, but one is passive ignorance and the other actively going against the truth.
It's easier, I think, for people to accept the "we were mistaken" line than to find out that they were knowingly being told something that was not the truth. There is often the speaker's self-interest involved with lying: The lying person can often seek to gain from the falsehood. Nobody makes mistakes willingly, by their very nature a mistake is unintentional and often harmful to the person who committed it. If they do or say the wrong thing, and know better, they must have a hidden agenda, and then it is not a mistake, but a lie.
Clinton lying about Bosnia just makes me cringe. More reasons to add to why I don't really care for her.
Maybe if we set more realistic expectations instead of believing in the trap of the sensationalist media, we'll be better off.
Clinton doesn't understand the new world. You can't lie about something that happened in public. Period. Youtube will get you. It speaks not so much about her character (politics is politics), but of her old world view.
Even if you did come under sniper fire, how does that make you more qualified to be president? If getting shot at makes you a better candidate, I've got a lot of punk kids in the bad part of town who will make better candidates than anyone currently in the running.