bush "disappears" privacy board - Page 3

Kernel Sanders · 09-10-08, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris

If its not the truth. Innocent or not.

Lie-

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

Either change one of its definitions of it or I am right according to our English language.

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

You may want to read your own post again. I can't believe you're actually saying that unintentional misspeaks are lies. I guess some people just want to argue, they don't care about what

DeeJayH · 09-10-08, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris

If its not the truth. Innocent or not.

Lie-

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

Either change one of its definitions of it or I am right according to our English language.

I dont have to change one of its definitions
i just have to point out the first and foremost definition you were kind enough to supply

Quote:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

dirtpoorchris · 09-10-08, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

I dont have to change one of its definitions
i just have to point out the first and foremost definition you were kind enough to supply

The definition can be all of the entries, some of them, or just one. Its just that knowingly lying is intentional and mistakenly lying is innocent. Unless you chose plausable deniability.

Harshaw · 09-10-08, 04:27 PM

Ah, the logical fallacy of equivocation -- which is actually a lie if done intentionally.

You'll say he "lied" knowing full well that pretty much everyone regards "lie" to mean intentional, and then if you're seriously challenged on it, you'll just say "no, I only meant it wasn't true, not that he did it intentionally." So, you get to say he lied no matter what.

I mean, that's what you did here. No reason to think you haven't/won't do it elsewhere.

Shoddy.

dirtpoorchris · 09-10-08, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Ah, the logical fallacy of equivocation -- which is actually a lie if done intentionally.

You'll say he "lied" knowing full well that pretty much everyone regards "lie" to mean intentional, and then if you're seriously challenged on it, you'll just say "no, I only meant it wasn't true, not that he did it intentionally." So, you get to say he lied no matter what.

I mean, that's what you did here. No reason to think you haven't/won't do it elsewhere.

Shoddy.

With the experiences I have been though in my life the word "lie" in its contexts is familier with me in both ways. Im was using the word correctly according to the definitions and always have.

dirtpoorchris · 09-10-08, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

You may want to read your own post again. I can't believe you're actually saying that unintentional misspeaks are lies. I guess some people just want to argue, they don't care about what

A man with normal vision looking at a wall painted with a background he could see, a circle he could see, and was asked "What shape do you see here?" if replying truthfully would say. "A circle." and be telling the truth.

A man with color blindness (that affected him so that he could not distinguish between the energy waves) looking at the same wall and asked the same question would reply if being truthfull "There is no shape on the wall."
He would be telling the truth but the rest of the world would say he is telling a lie."
He would fit under the catagory of
3. an inaccurate or false statement

Kernel Sanders · 09-10-08, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris

A man with normal vision looking at a wall painted with a background he could see, a circle he could see, and was asked "What shape do you see here?" if replying truthfully would say. "A circle." and be telling the truth.

A man with color blindness (that affected him so that he could not distinguish between the energy waves) looking at the same wall and asked the same question would reply if being truthfull "There is no shape on the wall."
He would be telling the truth but the rest of the world would say he is telling a lie."
He would fit under the catagory of
3. an inaccurate or false statement

Uhh...no. The rest of the world would say that he is mistaken

dirtpoorchris · 09-10-08, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

Uhh...no. The rest of the world would say that he is mistaken

Not if they didnt know he was color blind.

Kernel Sanders · 09-10-08, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris

Not if they didnt know he was color blind.

In which case they would call him a liar because they believe the mistake to be intentional. And they would be wrong, he is not a liar, he is a colorblind man whose disability caused him to make a mistake

dirtpoorchris · 09-10-08, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders

In which case they would call him a liar because they believe the mistake to be intentional. And they would be wrong, he is not a liar, he is a colorblind man whose disability caused him to make a mistake

And so he would fall under the 3rd definition.