Yes, but only for important issues. "Little white lies" not so much.
Note sure, let's discuss.
Other (plase explain).
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?
A lie of omission would be something like "This car is serviced regularly" while failing to say "And on its last servicing, we discovered about a million things wrong with it". The statement has to be 100% true while leaving out some fact that would change teh person's perception of said statement. Your example is not 100% true because it is a lie.
The part you pointed out was a lie of omission, but at no point did I say that the fault does not lie on the receiver for not following up to get more information. They are assuming that simply because it's serviced, there is nothing wrong with it. That is their own fault.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 10-25-11 at 11:30 AM.
For an example. At one point during the runup to the Iraq war, the inspectors were pulled out because of failure to comply on the part of Hussein. I watched the whole runup on Free Speech tv, which included a lot of reports and documentaries we never see here. And they had a documentary piece from the BBC (iirc) that shed a little light on the subject that never made it into our media.
There was a procedure in place for the inspection of Husseins palaces, the ones he actually lived in. Inspectors were allowed by agreement to inspect without notice, but were only allowed to send in two inspectors initially. If those inspectors found something they could bring in the rest of the team.
The new American head of the inspectors unilaterally changed the rules and demanded the whole team be allowed to enter from the outset.
Palace guards refused to allow this, as it was contrary to their orders, and the inspectors were pulled out based on this "non-compliance".
Its been a while and I can't remember all the details, but it was such a big deal that I'm sure I could get the details.
The upshot is the example.
"Saddam Hussein refuses to allow inspectors to do their jobs" while leaving out that it was a unilateral, non-negotiated change in protocols that caused the reaction in the first place, is a lie.
And the kind not easily debunked by the listener.
Last edited by What if...?; 10-25-11 at 11:53 AM.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
I've been rethinking what I've said in this thread and I realized how I might be coming across is not exactly what I'm trying to say.
I'm saying that, in the dichotomy of the thread question, an outright lie is worse than a lie of omission because a lie of omission must be coupled with an assumption by the receiver in order for it to be deceptive. There must be some degree of self-deception involved in a lie of omission, while there is no self-deception when someone is lied to outright.
That does not excuse the person who is taking advantage of the listener's assumptions, though. It just makes it a lesser form of dishonesty than an outright lie would be.
That's also just a comparison of the two forms of dishonesty in general. Comparing specific lies of each sort to each other can lead to different results (lying to the wife by saying I was at my friends house because I didn't want to tell her I was at the mall buying her a surprise gift for her birthday would not be as bad as saying "I was at work" omitting the fact that, while I was at work, I was banging my secretary).
And there are certain specific instances where a person is under a legal obligation to divulge all of the facts of a situation and in such instances, a lie of omission is essentially the same as an outright lie.
I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.