• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?

Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 8 40.0%

  • Yes, but only for important issues. "Little white lies" not so much.

    Votes: 8 40.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • Note sure, let's discuss.

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Other (plase explain).

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Morality Games said:
It is worse. Lies by omission are far more convincing, far more subtle, and their potentiality for harm far greater. People who exercise deception as a way of life nearly always lie by omission, as it gives them an appearance of credibility they can use as currency in the discourses that bring them profit. Lies of omission are the most cunning kind of lies, and the hardest to detect and combat.
Click to expand...

The reason lies of omission are more effective is because they take advantage of the receiver's self-deception.

But they are actually far easier to counteract than an outright lie if one operates under the assumption that they have a duty to inform themselves of all of the facts.

Personally, if I fall for a lie of omission, I consider it to be my own fault for not informing myself. Hell, I don't even have to assume that people are dishonest to realize that I should be working to inform myself of the facts because all too often people speak as though they know what s going on even though they are themselves ignorant of the facts.

It's almost impossible to differentiate between a person who is knowingly committing a lie of omission and an ignorant buffoon who fooled themselves into believing that they actually knew what they were talking about. But since both types of people occur in abundance, one should always take an active role in informing themselves.

Another danger is that lies of omission are the lies people who are uncomfortable with dishonesty are likeliest to employ in order to protect themselves from the pangs of conscience. All the benefits of lying with none of the remorse.
Click to expand...

If they don't feel remorse for it because they don't believe it is a form of deceit, then they are actively lying to themselves.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
When it comes to weighing these things legally it depends on *what happened after the lie* or *what happened directly as a result of the lie*

Lying itself - or omitting facts and bits of information - in and of itself isn't wrong at all. It's unethical but not illegal. The after effects are crucial.
Click to expand...

The poll asked if it was still a lie, not to grade the level of the lie. It will always be a lie and will require a poll to determine the severity of the lie on perhaps a 1 to 10 scale.
 
DaveFagan said:
The poll asked if it was still a lie, not to grade the level of the lie. It will always be a lie and will require a poll to determine the severity of the lie on perhaps a 1 to 10 scale.
Click to expand...

I didn't even see the poll - I was just throwing in the legal side of the law when it comes to the 'badness' of a lie . . . lies aren't bad - it's what happens as a result that is.
 
As noted by others, if the intent of the omission was to deceive, or perceived as such, then it is just as dishonest.

The argument seems to be "I did not lie to you. I just deceived you". :roll:

Obama ............................... :)
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?

When I say "lying by omission", I mean that a person makes a statement or claim about something knowing full well that they are omitting an important piece of information that might cause the listener or reader to think less favorably about the issue.
Click to expand...

Politicians, candidates who lie in any way shape or form should be removed and be ineligible to run for or hold public office for life
 
Tucker Case said:
The self-deception is right there in your post. As soon as the receiver said "yay" and assumed that it looked and sounded good they lied to themselves because they did not review all of the facts before developing their opinion. It is not the speaker's job to alleviate the ignorance of the receiver so that teh receiver can make an informed decision, it is the receiver's job to do this.
Click to expand...

Im starting to feel stronger that Tucker works for ING Direct.
 
How bad a lie or omission is depends on the consequences of the particular act/omission. It's certainly possible than an omission can be equally reprehensible or even worse than a lie.
 
And this isn't always about deception either. When you do sales for example, you always face the question of how much information to convey, and how it will be interpreted. The fact is, you present what you feel best conveys your message. You will ALWAYS omit an enormous amount of information. The onus of whether it was pertinet or not isn't your call. It's not professional to claim the seller didn't disclose something, when you never asked it.

If you look at it from an abstract perspective, it's actually a defense AGAINST bad people, as much or more than it's the behavior a bad person. For example, in politics, when a candidate strays off message and starts talking off-the-cuff. They may do so out of honesty and good will, but then their opponents get that footage, cut it up out of context, or do some deep reserach on it, and then flay them in the news for it. Staying on message is annoying, but it's also necessary given their opponets don't have their best interest in mind...
 
Last edited:
Another example of lying by omission...

A friend of mine, who is a President Obama sycophant, recently claimed among his accomplishments "killing Osama bin Laden without the loss of a single American life".

Ummm, no. While the particular raid that killed him may not have resulted in loss of an American life, many Americans have died in the long quest to deal with bin Laden.
 
There are way too many wishy-washy synonyms that are meant to water down the significance of lying. Omission, evasion, misleading, etc. If the intent is to leave the listener/reader with an impression than is different than the truth, it's lying.

Which lies are acceptable (they exist) seems like an entirely separate discussion.
 
EarlzP said:
Politicians, candidates who lie in any way shape or form should be removed and be ineligible to run for or hold public office for life
Click to expand...

That would be most of them if not all of them.
 
This is a pretty good TED talk on lying by Pamela Meyer. I particularly like the idea that lying "is a cooperative act...its power emerges when someone agrees to believe the lie."

Another great quote: "We're against lying, but we're covertly for it."

Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar | Video on TED.com
 
Yes, if the intent to deceive is the same. And it generally is.
 
MaggieD said:
What have you done with Tucker???? Let me see if I understand what you've said. If someone omits a pertinent factoid, the blame lies on the listener. Huh?? Tucker!!! Change your password!!!
Click to expand...

Actually that is quite correct. It is the job of the listener to ask the appropriate questions. If they do not then they are at fault. Why do you think police have a tendency to ask multiple questions phrased differently but all asking the same thing? It is to ferret out ommisions.

Listener: "I didn't know your birthday was on Oct 2!"
Answeree: "You didn't ask."

A perfectly valid response.

This of course doesn't mean that an omission when talking to the police is a good thing. However in a court of law the defendent doesn't have to volunteer anything.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually that is quite correct. It is the job of the listener to ask the appropriate questions. If they do not then they are at fault. Why do you think police have a tendency to ask multiple questions phrased differently but all asking the same thing? It is to ferret out ommisions.

Listener: "I didn't know your birthday was on Oct 2!"
Answeree: "You didn't ask."

A perfectly valid response.

This of course doesn't mean that an omission when talking to the police is a good thing. However in a court of law the defendent doesn't have to volunteer anything.
Click to expand...

This is why I say as it pertains to dealing with police..

If the only options you are committed to are "Tell a lie" or "Remain Silent"...

Stick with remaining silent......
 
Actually, although it wasnt offered as a poll option, a lie by omission can be more damaging than an outright lie which more often than not will eventually come to lite leaving the perpetrator a reputation of unreliability. Politicians and journalists are rarely guilty of bold face lies.

This is most prominent in the many cases of biased jounalism that takes place everyday when ommission of facts and pertinant information can and does affect voter decisions regarding policy and political representation leaving the news source's reputation intact and free to recommit.

Take for example the last presidential election during which an agenda driven press ommited and minimized important information concerning the history of Barack Obama whose ties to known criminals, marxists, domestic terrorists and a church whose spiritial leader preached black liberation theology and racism towards whites and jews.

If David Duke was running for president and his history was for the most part unknown to the public, wouldn't his KuKluxKlan history be pertinent information to americans deciding who to vote for? Many people still have faith in the press and if they pick up scraps of information here and there which otherwise is being ommited or minimized by the news, they assume it must not true.

Lies by ommision can and does affect the course of history where as outright lies usually affect little more than our everyday decisions of the here and now.
 
Empirica said:
Take for example the last presidential election during which an agenda driven press ommited and minimized important information concerning the history of Barack Obama whose ties to known criminals, marxists, domestic terrorists and a church whose spiritial leader preached black liberation theology and racism towards whites and jews.
Click to expand...

While the whole post was idiotic this passage particularly stands out.

There's something called reality, might wanna try it sometime.
 
Jetboogieman said:
While the whole post was idiotic this passage particularly stands out.

There's something called reality, might wanna try it sometime.
Click to expand...
I dont understand your problem Jboo?

You make an accusation of "idiotic" with no explanation.

And it's certainly not uncommon to use an example to make a point.
 
Caine said:
This is why I say as it pertains to dealing with police..

If the only options you are committed to are "Tell a lie" or "Remain Silent"...

Stick with remaining silent......
Click to expand...

Every time
 
Empirica said:
I dont understand your problem Jboo?

You make an accusation of "idiotic" with no explanation.

And it's certainly not uncommon to use an example to make a point.
Click to expand...

I really don't think there's a required explanation.

Your premise exclaims that the media "downplayed" those things that you listed, apart from alot of them being idiotic such as Obama palling around with Terrorists and criminals, charges such as "He began his political career in Ayers living room" it completely ignores that these things were in fact not downplayed at all! Not in any sense of the word where they downplayed or minimized, they like every other story that comes out about politicians during an election cycle got an extremely decent amount of coverage.

But unlike say Cain for example, who stumbled his way through his allegations, Obama met it head on.

The only reason you like to say things like what you said in your previous post is cause your pissed he got elected and you're pissed the electorate chose to ignore stupid sensationalist reporting that wasn't accurate nor relevent.
 
radcen said:
Another example of lying by omission...

A friend of mine, who is a President Obama sycophant, recently claimed among his accomplishments "killing Osama bin Laden without the loss of a single American life".

Ummm, no. While the particular raid that killed him may not have resulted in loss of an American life, many Americans have died in the long quest to deal with bin Laden.
Click to expand...

That's an outright lie on three levels. 1. Obama didn't kill bin Laden 2. American lives were lost in the effort to capture or kill bin Laden and 3. It wasn't simply Obama's accomplishment, it was the product of the fforts of many hundreds if not thousands of individuals, many of whom did far more than Obama.


These facts were not omitted, they were ignored in order to make an all-around false claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom