• 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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
 
It's not even close to being as bad. An outright lie involves the speaker conveying false information, whereas a "lie of omission" involves the receiver lying to themselves by way of assumption.

In one instance, th3 speaker is actively doing something dishonest. In the other, the receiver is actively doing something stupid. The blame in the latter case falls on the receiver.
 
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.
I think you've just described Fox News "We Report, You Decide"
 
It's not even close to being as bad. An outright lie involves the speaker conveying false information, whereas a "lie of omission" involves the receiver lying to themselves by way of assumption.

In one instance, th3 speaker is actively doing something dishonest. In the other, the receiver is actively doing something stupid. The blame in the latter case falls on the receiver.
There is usually some level of assumption, sure, but that does not automatically mean the 'receiver' is lying to themselves. Made up example...

Politician: You citizens are safer because I implemented stronger criminal protections and got common thugs off the streets. (Yay me!) [Looks and sounds good.]
Untold truth: I was able to do it by increasing your taxes three-fold and suspending the Constitution. [Oh, wait, maybe it's not so good.]
 
It's not even close to being as bad. An outright lie involves the speaker conveying false information, whereas a "lie of omission" involves the receiver lying to themselves by way of assumption.

In one instance, th3 speaker is actively doing something dishonest. In the other, the receiver is actively doing something stupid. The blame in the latter case falls on the receiver.

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!!!
 
I think it depends entirely on intent. If the intent is to deceive, then it is likely wrong. Otherwise, it is probably innocent.
 
Politician: You citizens are safer because I implemented stronger criminal protections and got common thugs off the streets. (Yay me!) [Looks and sounds good.]
Untold truth: I was able to do it by increasing your taxes three-fold and suspending the Constitution. [Oh, wait, maybe it's not so good.]


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.
 
There is usually some level of assumption, sure, but that does not automatically mean the 'receiver' is lying to themselves. Made up example...

Politician: You citizens are safer because I implemented stronger criminal protections and got common thugs off the streets. (Yay me!) [Looks and sounds good.]
Untold truth: I was able to do it by increasing your taxes three-fold and suspending the Constitution. [Oh, wait, maybe it's not so good.]

In this case it is not a lie, the person doing the listening can easily find the information


But in the case of

Question Where were you last night?


Answer At home (but leave out the 3 hours spent at the strip club) that would be a lie and just as bad as an actual lie
 
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!!!

Speakers are not required to present all of the facts (if they were, we'd all be guilty of lying constantly, because such a requirement would be impossible).

Receivers who assume that all of the facts have been presented are at fault for their own assumptions. It is their job to alleviate their own ignorance. It is not the speaker's job.

Will dishonest speakers take advantage of the stupid assumptions of others? Of course they will, they are dishonest.

But that does not alleviate the receiver of their complicity in their own self-deception.
 
Question Where were you last night?


Answer At home (but leave out the 3 hours spent at the strip club) that would be a lie and just as bad as an actual lie

That would be an actual lie, not a lie of omission, since the statement, "the speaker was not at home last night" is a true statement.

If the question was "What did you do last night", saying "I walked around for a bit and I watched some TV as well" while leaving out the portion about the strip club would be a lie of omission.
 
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.
You misunderstood. The "Yay me!" was intended to be the politician saying it to themself. IOW: "Praise me, people, for how great I am."
 
Speakers are not required to present all of the facts (if they were, we'd all be guilty of lying constantly, because such a requirement would be impossible).

Receivers who assume that all of the facts have been presented are at fault for their own assumptions. It is their job to alleviate their own ignorance. It is not the speaker's job.

Will dishonest speakers take advantage of the stupid assumptions of others? Of course they will, they are dishonest.

But that does not alleviate the receiver of their complicity in their own self-deception.
The receiver's part has nothing to do with it. The speaker, and the relative importance of the information omitted, is the issue.
 
That would be an actual lie, not a lie of omission, since the statement, "the speaker was not at home last night" is a true statement.

If the question was "What did you do last night", saying "I walked around for a bit and I watched some TV as well" while leaving out the portion about the strip club would be a lie of omission.

The statement "at home" would be true, he was at home for some of the time, not just all of the time.
 
You misunderstood. The "Yay me!" was intended to be the politician saying it to themself. IOW: "Praise me, people, for how great I am."

Gotcha. then the receiver is only lying to themselves when they assume that what is obviously partial information is a good thing.
 
The statement "at home" would be true, he was at home for some of the time, not just all of the time.

If the statement "The speaker was not at home last night" is true, then an answer of "I was at home last night" would have to be a lie, at least partially.

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.
 
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.
No. By your own criteria, the receiver should have presumed there was missing information, and the onus is on them.
 
No. By your own criteria, the receiver should have presumed there was missing information, and the onus is on them.

Ah, since when do you determine my criteria?

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:
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.

Lying by ommission is one of the key tools of Public Relations. Accentuating the positive and downplaying or ommitting the negative.

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:
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.
 
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.
It does. Thanks.

What I highlighted in red was why I provided the option in the poll about "little white lies", because I agree there are instances where it's not a big deal.
 
It does. Thanks.

What I highlighted in red was why I provided the option in the poll about "little white lies", because I agree there are instances where it's not a big deal.

I'm color-blind so highlighting in red is just cruel :2razz: (I can see it, just not nearly as quickly as a normal person would, so I'm just pulling your leg a bit)

The option about little white lies is a good one, but it doesn't really fit with my perspective on it. If we have two seriously bad lies, one of omission one outright, the outright lie is usually worse. For example: If I tell my wife I am not having an affair even though I am banging my secretary it is worse than saying "I was at work" while neglecting to mention that I was banging the secretary while I was at work.

Both examples are very bad, and the results are essentially the same, but the outright lie is just a tad worse.
 
To me it's still deceitfulness.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
I've never told a lie, at least not that I can remember.
 
Back
Top Bottom