Are you willing to lie to push your agenda?

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

I would have lied to get Jews out of concentration camps, free slaves, and stop wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) because they were the greater evil. I do my best to honestly debate and use facts, and hard evidence, but when the state inprisions people for smoking a type of vegetation, or not chipping in to a welfare program (pay taxes) by the threat of government force, I would lie to stop that.

I don't have an agenda and I'm only interested in presenting the reality as it is.

If I have to rank the 3 top topics I'm interested in:
-Climate Change -> I don't have to lie. NASA and tons of govt agencies in all the civilized world is on my side of the argument. Or rather, I echo what they say about climate change.

-The unintegrability of muslims in Europe: I don't have to lie. It is self-evident. From the tons of crimes that they commit in both organized and individual fashion to the wave of jihadists, all of them fueled by cultural-religious motives, there is just 1 correct answer and that is that muslims cannot be integrated in western society by the numbers that they are now. Sure, small numbers, in the thousands per million of population could be integrated with some success, but the moment you allow for even the smallest of muslim enclaves and allow that cultural-religious enviroment to exist, the people there become unintegratable.

-Covering the EU democratic deficit and structural chaos. Basically I'm an euroskeptic and I don't think the EU can continue with these problems. It has to reform. More possibility to vote directly on electing individuals. Make the EU parliament bicameral and put it to mixed member proportional representation. Give it actual legislative powers. Make the EU Comission head electable by the people and not appointed by the EU Council. And strip the EU comission of legislative powers.

I don't have to be dishonest, I just have to not let the people who counter my arguments to be dishonest and blame things on what they aren't.
In the case of climate change, the dishonesty comes from rhetoric like:
-consensus doesn't mean truth ------ presenting pseudoscience which isn't science, pseudo=false ------- ignoring the actual data ---- They're basically trying to flip the mountain on it's axis by use of a toothpick.

In the case of muslim unintegrability, the common rhetoric that fails on it's ass is:
-Oh, it's just economic factors -> no it isn't. The iraqi christians who are refugees aren't doing the same level of crime. It's not socio-economics.
-The numbers are too small to count -> they're not too small to count. When it comes to individual lives, it takes just 1 loonatic to blow up dozens. Sure, the country will live on, for while, but those dozens of people won't. What if it is you or me? And you can't prevent loonatics from blowing themselves up. You can't take basic avoidance lessons like crossing the street because they're camoflaged among the population. They don't wear a bomb sign over their head.
-We just need to integrate them better. There is no method, we tried everything and it doesn't work. If education, which is free, doesn't integrate people, then nothing will. And it doesn't work. The terrorist acts are mostly done by educated people so if anything, it seems that giving them an education leads them to be more farther from away from integration.

In the case of the EU, the common rhetoric from pro-EU people is something like:
-Aggression: oh, you're just a euroskeptic that hates democracy. That means you're with UKIP or Le Pen or some fascist group. These people cannot understand that my criticism towards the EU is out of love for democracy and I want to see the EU democracy be better than national democracy so that it becomes something to strive for. Otherwise, it will never survive.
-Brushing off criticism: Oh, you just don't understand how it works. Oh, you are just exaggerating things. Oh, this isn't up to the EU, it's national govts that are to blame, etc. No, stop pulling rabbits out of the hat. This isn't some kids show. This is real life. And the democratic deficit won't go away because you're brushing it off. And neither will the economic structural deficits go away because you wish it. We have to face the facts.
-Fearmongering and avoiding the question: We need the EU to exist so that Europe can be competitive and to be able to talk on even terms with China or to withstand the bullying of Russia.
This is true. The EU has to exist. But again, does the way things are seem like the EU is working? Oh, no, that's the fault of national governments, not the EU... BS. It's all interconnected. The problem with this argument is that while it is true, the method to making the EU exist further is to reform it. Not to keep it as it is.

Point is. Stop being dishonest in order to preserve some wierd stupid idea. Whether it's the cult of climate change deniers, the cult of multi-culti who hate the society that gave them everything so much that they'll do anything to kill it, or the europhiles who are blind to the EU's faults as if they were in love... time to wake up and give some tough love to the EU-> reform or die. There is no alternative.

EDIT: Would I be willing to lie? I mean, I don't have to for the topics I posted, but would I be willing to? It depends on the issue.
On a scientific issue, never.
On a social issue... it depends on the issue. I am not above lying for personal gains, after all ,the man who doesn't lie is nothing but a child, but online I have nothing personal to gain. I don't make money or prestige or gain invaluable knowledge from this activity and many others that I do online for recreation or entertainment. So no, I wouldn't lie for anything that could be discussed online.

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

No. And it is often a problem.

PS:

Kal'Stang said:

...
Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

Are you willing to lie to push your agenda?

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

Like most things, it depends on context. Also, what you mean by 'agenda'. Like, would I lie to help get a politician elected? Probably not, but it depends on who is running for office, and what office they are running for. Would I lie to save a loved one from hardship or discomfort? Without a second thought. Would I lie to save my own ass? No, probably not. Etc etc.

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

No.

Because I like to think that my only agenda is finding solutions and stances on issues based on truthful evaluation of facts and a certain set of values, not ideology. No agenda beyond that.

Would I lie about someone getting my order wrong at a fast food joint in order to get free stuff? I haven't done it yet which kinda surprises me considering the number of people I know who have done it.

No. I wouldn't.

This is the question of whether or not the ends justify the means. My position on that has always been that if the neans required are deceitful, then the ends are illigitimate and undesirable. Lies always eventually result in destructiveness to one degree or another.

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

In the Army we don't say it's a lie, we say "there's a better way to answer that question".

My primary agenda is to see my children, and yes I have before, frequently, and will again lie right to my ex's face. I told her early on in the divorce process that I would not act in good faith towards her, and I don't. When she gets upset at me I freely admit that I lied to get my way.

Whenever I'm in a job interview, it's a run-on lie start to finish. I've deliberately re-phrased and mischaracterized my resume and work history to fit a narrative which is not literally true but sells me in a better way by covering up some mistakes I've made.

When my agenda is to have fun, I will agree to a game's EULA and ToS, and, if it suits me, almost immediately brake a certain rule against buying game currency for real money from a 3rd party, so as to gain an advantage over other players. I know how to get away with it, I know that if caught the company rarely gives a serious infraction, and I know that if I get a serious infraction that I need to have a back-up account standing by so my entertainment in the game isn't interrupted by a punishment.

I'll tell my boys his drawing is really good when in fact it's crap; no point in hurting his feelings over something trivial. When I sign a no-gun policy to get the job and then carry anyway because my safety is more important to me than the company's liability insurance. When I set cruse-control 5-10mph above the limit.

So yeah, I'm open to telling a mis-truth to serve my agenda.

***
Politically, I piss more people off by telling the truth, and that's more fun, so I don't lie.

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

There are very few reasons I would lie. The main one is on matters of life or death either an attempt to preserve life if I have nothing else to use, or to spare unneeded pain to the dying by reassuring them on their deathbed. The only other reason I would lie is to spare someone emotional trauma of certain truths they are unaware of and have no knowledge or need of.(This last is subject to change should circumstance warrant.)

Lying for an agenda is foolish. It always comes back to bite you in the ass. Those that lie to promote their agenda personal or otherwise are shortsighted and cant see the forest though the trees. The truth no matter how painful is ALWAYS useful.

The tricky widget is KNOWING the truth. Being able to tell fact from fiction that's a gift that not all people have and most to varying degrees. Ones mans truth is another mans lie. Even facts can lie. Discerning what is and is not is a lifetime endeavor never perfected.

For me it is always better to tell the truth as I see it regardless the personal pain to myself and those around me. Its much simpler to deal with. It also makes dealing with being wrong about certain truths easier. It boils down to the golden rule and karma for me. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What goes around, comes around.

Rainman05 said:

If I have to rank the 3 top topics I'm interested in:
-Climate Change -> I don't have to lie. NASA and tons of govt agencies in all the civilized world is on my side of the argument. Or rather, I echo what they say about climate change.

Click to expand...

Hahaha. Well played. You're probably lying right there. Doing the o' switcheroo there.

By pushing one's agenda, I'm assuming you mean in debate or activism, not something like smuggling out Jews during the Holocaust as mentioned in post 2.

No. On a lot of issues, my stance is formed by things I learn, not the other way around. So there's no reason to lie if one's stance is formed around evidence to begin with.

On some issues, on which objective facts are either unavailable or not as heavily relevant to the ethical conclusion, again, no. If I have to lie to successfully argue my point, there's either something wrong with my argument or something wrong with my ethics.

Rainman05 said:

If I have to rank the 3 top topics I'm interested in:
-Climate Change -> I don't have to lie. NASA and tons of govt agencies in all the civilized world is on my side of the argument. Or rather, I echo what they say about climate change.

Click to expand...

Like this gem:

President 'has four years to save Earth'
US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster!
Robin McKie in New York
The Observer, Saturday 17 January 2009
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

Click to expand...

If AGW is not resolved by 2013, we're all going to die. That's just a fact, and NASA says so :lol:

AGW is pure bull****. Anyone arguing in favor of AGW is necessarily lying with every word.

Jerry said:

Like this gem:

If AGW is not resolved by 2013, we're all going to die. That's just a fact, and NASA says so :lol:

AGW is pure bull****. Anyone arguing in favor of AGW is necessarily lying with every word.

Click to expand...

recalcitrant said:

Hahaha. Well played. You're probably lying right there. Doing the o' switcheroo there.

Click to expand...

There's an entire subforum dedicated to this pointless discussion. Lets not dirty up this thread with it too. I was just pointing out what my stance is on lying or being truthful.

Meaning political agenda? No. :lol: I can see a handful on here that would, though.

I would lie to keep from hurting someone, but generally, I don't lie about much else, so...

Rainman05 said:

There's an entire subforum dedicated to this pointless discussion. Lets not dirty up this thread with it too. I was just pointing out what my stance is on lying or being truthful.

Click to expand...

Oh I had no intention of discussing it.

Kal'Stang said:

So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Click to expand...

Ironically, I only rarely vote in polls that are public but would happily make an exception here. I would never lie to push any agenda, not even a teensy "white lie."

lizzie said:

No. I wouldn't.

This is the question of whether or not the ends justify the means. My position on that has always been that if the neans required are deceitful, then the ends are illigitimate and undesirable. Lies always eventually result in destructiveness to one degree or another.

Click to expand...

No matter how much one rationalizes, the ends don't justify the means. I so agree with what you've posted here.

Rainman05 said:

There's an entire subforum dedicated to this pointless discussion. Lets not dirty up this thread with it too. I was just pointing out what my stance is on lying or being truthful.

Click to expand...

You brought it up - and since you "echo" what has been proven over and over again to be false - you are lying, or at least willing to deny falsification of a lie, which makes you a liar who is in denial.

"NASA and tons of govt agencies" are just that - government agencies. Government agencies have agendas - there don't care about science or the truth about any subject. True to what government is and does, they care about protecting and advancing their own careers first, money second, and protecting their own turf third - somewhere way, way down the line is "truth".

The NASA you are talking about is usually the spewings of a few activists with letters - most notably James Hansen - who has been exposed over and over again as willing to fabricate, i.e. lie to advance his agenda - what does that say about you, who is willing to blindly follow and repeat his lies??

As for the rest of the AGW nonsense - if someone puts a study or theory out there, it has to be tested and attempts made to falsify it. That is how science works - actual science, not the agenda nonsense that passes for science on the subject of AGW.

And so it goes... if you are saying that you are not intelligent enough to see through a lie, then fine - just go ahead and say you're a dummy, and that you blindly believe anything your government tells you - and b/c your gov't told you something it has to be absolute, incontovertible truth.

Because afterall, governments don't lie, ever - do they??

Rainman05 said:

There's an entire subforum dedicated to this pointless discussion. Lets not dirty up this thread with it too. I was just pointing out what my stance is on lying or being truthful.

Click to expand...

Hey, I gave an example of people willing to lie to push their agenda. Go play hall-monitor somewhere else.

I'm opposed to lying but stretching the truth a little isn't the same thing, right?

The problem here is the age old question of "what is truth"

I would imagine that the great majority of active participants on this forum believe that they are pushing the truth, even though there are a huge number of disagreements on any number of topics.

I know I don't have any motivation to lie, yet I get accused of doing just that from time to time and I suspect that I am far from being alone in this experience.

In order for someone to lie, they have to believe that what they are saying is untrue, when reasonable people differing on opinions is by far the easier and more likely explanation.

wist43 said:

You brought it up - and since you "echo" what has been proven over and over again to be false - you are lying, or at least willing to deny falsification of a lie, which makes you a liar who is in denial.

"NASA and tons of govt agencies" are just that - government agencies. Government agencies have agendas - there don't care about science or the truth about any subject. True to what government is and does, they care about protecting and advancing their own careers first, money second, and protecting their own turf third - somewhere way, way down the line is "truth".

The NASA you are talking about is usually the spewings of a few activists with letters - most notably James Hansen - who has been exposed over and over again as willing to fabricate, i.e. lie to advance his agenda - what does that say about you, who is willing to blindly follow and repeat his lies??

As for the rest of the AGW nonsense - if someone puts a study or theory out there, it has to be tested and attempts made to falsify it. That is how science works - actual science, not the agenda nonsense that passes for science on the subject of AGW.

And so it goes... if you are saying that you are not intelligent enough to see through a lie, then fine - just go ahead and say you're a dummy, and that you blindly believe anything your government tells you - and b/c your gov't told you something it has to be absolute, incontovertible truth.

Because afterall, governments don't lie, ever - do they??

Click to expand...

Ok.
There are still some amazonian tribes that don't have a government. go over there and live your life free of tyranny and lies and deception.

The government is the people. The state is the people. It doesn't exist in an abstract plains. If you think the govt is out to get you, you, as the citizen, with your rights that are guaranteed by the state, have the power to make changes legally. But staying on the internet making false claims and talking nonsense, feeding yourself in a negative loop of paranoia along with the rest of the people who share your belief, isn't how you change things.

Yes, government aren't perfect and yes, they're corrupt. I am not going to deny that. And yes, sometimes, they keep secrets from the population at large. And that's sometimes a necessity. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still accountable to the people. The people are still the ones who have the power in a democracy. So look at yourself and you'll see you're not perfect, look at the people you vote into office and you'll see they're not perfect, and look at the people you associate with from an ideological standpoint and see that they're not perfect, then don't be amazed when things aren't perfect.

No... but that doesn't stop others from calling you one.