This needs some unpacking, could you explain what you mean here?

Doesn't sound right to me. Is that what you believe?

We all are UNSATISFIED SOULS hanging out on mingle tree

we are searching for the subjects for killing the time

& you are asking to refer google & dictionary?

My conclusion is if a honest person tells me they have never lied thats a lie,so yes they do know what a lie is.

For it to be a lie, the person making the statement must know the truth and knowingly present something other than the truth.


I can be mistaken, which would mean what I present I believe to be true at the time of my presentation.

If you can gather information that shows the person has the applicable knowledge in question, and yet presents something other than that without mistake, than you can know they are lying.

That is a tall order in most cases.

If I tell person A, the red switch is safe to pull.
and I tell person B, the red switch is not safe to pull.
Without a change in my knowledge of the safety of pulling the red switch, AND NO CHANGE IN CONTEXT OR SITUATION, then it is clear I am lying to one or the other.

No it's not clear that you are lying to either.

The red switch operates a gate placed 6 feet above the ground.

Person A is 5'6"
Person B is 6'6"

Safe for one, not for the other.

I became an astronaut last year.

Bold lettering fails to garner the attention that it demands.

So give it some attention then.

Person A is still person A.
Person B is still person B.
It's still the same red switch.
The switch still operates a gate 6' off the ground.
The switch is still in the same position.

All I did was describe the potential height attributes of persons A and B. Which of course is a perfectly honest thing to do as no two humans are identical. Unless you wish to testify that you knew bushido's thoughts and he meant to specify 2 clones?

Ooooooohhhhhh Grasshopper.......

One can not be honest.......

until he has experienced dishonest.

One can not be good......

Until he has experienced.....Bad!!!

For how would he know the.........

Difference?????

..knowledge is one thing,but does not make us who we are,that path we choose ourselves...

I find that this type of account(knowing the truth and telling the truth), while being agreeable at first glance in addition to being common parlance, lacks explanatory power and leads to very odd conclusions. Here's an example regarding the former that shows the latter...

A speaker believes X but testifies Y, and Y is true unbeknownst to him/her. In these cases it is clear that the person is lying because they do not believe what they are claiming, but the testimony is true none-the-less. So this person does not know the truth and is presenting the truth. According to the criterion you've set out, the person would not be lying. That is an odd thing to say, given the situation at hand. Subsequently, could be rightfully called "telling the truth". I mean the claims are true, but that can't be right either.






This perhaps, is the key to knowing what both dishonesty and lies consist in/of(knowing what they are). A lie is a misrepresention of one's own belief. One cannot mistakenly lie. One is also being dishonest in every such case. Falsehood, when spoken, does not necessarily constitute being a lie nor a sign of dishonesty. Likewise, all true claims are not necessarily honest ones nor are true claims and lies mutually exclusive. A lie can be true... oddly enough, if and only if, it is true unbeknownst to the speaker.

However, one cannot be honest and deliberately misrepresent their own belief.






Why posit the qualifier "without mistake" bushido? One can be both mistaken and lying.






All things being equal... yes, it cannot be both safe and not safe. Because we know that that is so, we can also know that you cannot believe both. So, you're misrepresenting your belief to one or the other. There are much stronger arguments though.

The context is different.



Well, I'm not questioning your honesty regarding what you think is an honest thing to do. I'm simply pointing out that you're changing the content of bushido's claim. Doing that changes the context.



I know what bushido meant, because I read what he wrote, and I understand what a change in context is.

I disagree. Knowing the difference between the two is not required for being either one.

Who we are is determined by a path we choose? How does this tie into the topic at hand?

So bushido told you exactly what he meant?

I read what he wrote too. Two separate persons.

He didn't specify what the switch did, nor the physical attributes of persons A and B. I can see the possibility that he could be telling the truth to both, so I can't with certainty know that he is lying.

Now if you wanna change the goalposts and specify 2 identical persons and what the switch does, my opinion may change. I judged what I was given and came to the logical conclusion that I couldn't be sure of dishonesty.

Feel free to move things as you see fit...

I know what bushido meant, because I read what he wrote, and I understand what a change in context is. You changed the context.

This statement is clearly false. You did not judge what was given. Rather, you judged what was not given, as is clearly seen by your own admission...



What more need be said?