100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Give what up? What do you think I'm attempting to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of thread. Of course it is. Dishonest testimony had been shown to come from creative and he can't deny it anymore. Soooo, running away is the only option. Peter you are simply being antagonistic when you accuse Creative of being dishonest. Anyone reading this thread might wonder why he even talks to you at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds...
So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that.
-- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I'll use what Di proposed earlier in order to provide a context. Joe and Jill have been good friends for a long time. The two habitually jest one another about being as specific and as literal as possible in their language use, especially with one another. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Because of the established history between the two Jill did not want to know if Joe was the only one there in the normal sense of the expression. Rather, Jill is expecting to catch Joe off guard. She is hoping that he doesn't count her, so that she can have an 'Aha!' moment with him - which she does as a result of his not realizing that she was being facetious. Again, I find that Joe has answered honestly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the criterion holds. However, these are all my scenarios, and knowing that it is very difficult for one to see the error of their own way, it is possible that I'm missing something here, or that their is another possible scenario which follows from the criterion and shows inadequacy.
Can anyone propose a scenario which, when we apply the criterion, we arrive at an obviously false conclusion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 04/04/12 04:11 PM
|
|
I think it is all pretty simple. A liar has the intention to deceive.
A person who repeats a lie thinking or assuming it is truth is not a liar. So a lie is like a virus that can be passed from one healthy person to another until it finds a person who is not healthy enough to resist it. A lie can be passed from one honest person to another until it does its damage. Some forms of this is called gossip, rumor and propaganda. And of course advertising.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 04/04/12 04:56 PM
|
|
I think it is all pretty simple. A liar has the intention to deceive. A person who repeats a lie thinking or assuming it is truth is not a liar. No argument here. That is fairly well established. The question, for me at least, is how we can know when another is being dishonest and what it takes in order to be ablt to do such a thing. Hence, the reason why bushido and I have proposed criterions for such. It is that criterion that I've been testing throughout the thread, along with the senseless arguing with our friend Pan which has detracted from the aim of the thread and I'm partially responsible for. Thus, I've spent the last several pages attempting to get th thread back on track. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 04/04/12 05:28 PM
|
|
I think it is all pretty simple. A liar has the intention to deceive. A person who repeats a lie thinking or assuming it is truth is not a liar. No argument here. That is fairly well established. The question, for me at least, is how we can know when another is being dishonest and what it takes in order to be ablt to do such a thing. Hence, the reason why bushido and I have proposed criterions for such. It is that criterion that I've been testing throughout the thread, along with the senseless arguing with our friend Pan which has detracted from the aim of the thread and I'm partially responsible for. Thus, I've spent the last several pages attempting to get th thread back on track. The question, for me at least, is how we can know when another is being dishonest and what it takes in order to be ablt to do such a thing. If you don't know the person, and can't see them, it won't be easy other than guess work and research. But in person, you can get training as a human lie detector from Paul Ekman. He is the leading person in the field of human lie detecting and interrogation. http://www.paulekman.com/ What does it take? A good power of observation. You have to detect and interpret body language, facial expressions, emotions, etc. and then try to discover what they are hiding or fearing. It may be something other than the question they are being asked. However, psychopaths are difficult if not impossible to detect, and apparently there are a lot of them among us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the person, and can't see them, it won't be easy other than guess work and research. It may not be nearly as difficult as you think. To state "X" is to believe that "X" is true; is the case; is the way things are, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the person, and can't see them, it won't be easy other than guess work and research. It may not be nearly as difficult as you think. To state "X" is to believe that "X" is true; is the case; is the way things are, etc. I'm talking about real life liars Creative. Not theories and formulas. To state X is not always to believe that X is true if you are lying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. Joe could be telling the truth... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter you are simply being antagonistic when you accuse Creative of being dishonest. Anyone reading this thread might wonder why he even talks to you at all. It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds... So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. I'll address you both at once. You should both look at yourselves before you make these public claims about me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter you are simply being antagonistic when you accuse Creative of being dishonest. Anyone reading this thread might wonder why he even talks to you at all. It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds... So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. I'll address you both at once. You should both look at yourselves before you make these public claims about me. Why? We are not the least bit antagonistic. I don't understand why you think so. I wish you would just stop posting in this thread. You just don't go around calling people dishonest or a liar. That is antagonistic, not to mention rude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would think that an honest person would have to know what a lie is..as not to tell one or for that matter even except one s fact..other wise it would be taking away from their honesty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter you are simply being antagonistic when you accuse Creative of being dishonest. Anyone reading this thread might wonder why he even talks to you at all. It is when I began wondering that myself, that I made the decision to ignore Pan until he began communicating in a more acceptable fashion. I'm still interested in putting the aforementioned criterion to the test, and see if it holds... So, that's what I'll do, while hopefully I'll get some participation from others who are interested as well. I'll address you both at once. You should both look at yourselves before you make these public claims about me. Why? We are not the least bit antagonistic. I don't understand why you think so. I wish you would just stop posting in this thread. You just don't go around calling people dishonest or a liar. That is antagonistic, not to mention rude. So tell creative what he did was antagonistic and rude... Fiction...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the person, and can't see them, it won't be easy other than guess work and research. It may not be nearly as difficult as you think. To state "X" is to believe that "X" is true; is the case; is the way things are, etc. I'm talking about real life liars Creative. Not theories and formulas. To state X is not always to believe that X is true if you are lying. Exactly. That is why self-contradiction, in certain ways at certain times, ought perk yer ears up, so to speak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media...
This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an incredible waste of storage media... This is the stupidest thread I have read so far. I agree. I find it odd that while some look for ways to be certain another is lying, when I find ways to imagine that they're not lying, my reasoning is belittled... Oh well, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. -- So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created the following hypothetical scenario in order to provide a context. Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's answer in order to see where it leads us. I find that because Joe knows that Mary is there as well, albeit in the other room, Joe is answering dishonestly. If Jill looks around and finds Mary in the other room, and asks Joe why he lied, Joe could deny that he knew, but that would obviously be dishonest. Joe could admit to knowing that Mary was in the other room and attempt to obfuscate by arguing that Jill was not specific enough in her question, while maintaining that he believed that Jill was asking him if was the only one there - in that particular room. At that point, if I am in Jill's shoes so to speak, I would have to wonder why Joe would expect me to believe him. I mean, Jill can see for herself that Joe is the only one there in that room, so it is obvious that she wouldn't be asking about that. Because that much is obvious, it becomes obvious that Joe is being dishonest here as well. Joe could be telling the truth... Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Joe knows that Mary is in the other room. Joe answers "Yes, of course." Just as before, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. Jill is not asking Joe to count her; the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding, and Joe knows that. |
|
|
|
|
