100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can an honest person not know what a lie is? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Would this be easier for ya if I just acknowledge that you could be lying? Or should I expect to be lied to? Explain what "this" means. What does "this" refer to? "CONTEXT OR SITUATION" You're asking me if the context/situation would be easier for me if you acknowledged that I could be lying? What kind of sense does that make given how the discussion has progressed? No, I want you to explain the unspecified CONTEXT OR SITUATION and how two separate actors performing the exact same action change either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I want you to explain the unspecified CONTEXT OR SITUATION and how two separate actors performing the exact same action change either. Are you asking me to explain how I answered bushido without changing the context but you did not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This question has come as a result of several different conversations that I've had in recent past. I'm currently undecided on the matter, which is new for me...  So whatcha think, and more importantly how do you arrive at that conclusion?    simple my friend its called logic 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I want you to explain the unspecified CONTEXT OR SITUATION and how two separate actors performing the exact same action change either. Are you asking me to explain how I answered bushido without changing the context but you did not? LOL, no! I want you to explain how you knew what the unspecified context or situation was... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I want you to explain the unspecified CONTEXT OR SITUATION and how two separate actors performing the exact same action change either. Are you asking me to explain how I answered bushido without changing the context but you did not? LOL, no! I want you to explain how you knew what the unspecified context or situation was... The context was specified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I want you to explain the unspecified CONTEXT OR SITUATION and how two separate actors performing the exact same action change either. Are you asking me to explain how I answered bushido without changing the context but you did not? LOL, no! I want you to explain how you knew what the unspecified context or situation was... The context was specified. Really? Then how did my scenario change it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You added information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You added information. wow, just wow... OK, forget my scenario. How would you know for certain he lied to one of the persons? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You added information. wow, just wow... OK, forget my scenario. How would you know for certain he lied to one of the persons? I've already explained myself regarding that. I'll not do it again. Go back and re-read the post of mine to which your response included the notion of making "this" easier on me. The asnwer you seek is right smack in the middle of the post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You added information. wow, just wow... OK, forget my scenario. How would you know for certain he lied to one of the persons? I've already explained myself regarding that. I'll not do it again. Go back and re-read the post of mine to which your response included the notion of making "this" easier on me. The asnwer you seek is right smack in the middle of the post. Again, you extrapolate data that is NOT there. The switch can be both safe and unsafe to 2 separate persons as I've illustrated. The same way you could tell the guy next to me that the shrimp is safe to eat and then tell me that the shrimp is NOT safe to eat and both statements be true. With the limited amount of data supplied, the only logical conclusion is that one cannot be certain that he lied to either A or B. If you are to be certain, then YOU have to insert data that was not specified. You seem to have trouble with variables, like everything must adhere to your perceptions with no possibility that you could be mistaken... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, you extrapolate data that is NOT there. So what? Drawing conclusions is a form of extrapolation. The act requires extrapolation. Extrapolation does not necessarily equate to changing the context of what was given. The context was specified, and I drew a conclusion based upon the specific context. The switch can be both safe and unsafe to 2 separate persons as I've illustrated. Well yes, of course. I'm not denying that possibility. However, without a change in bushido's knowledge of the switch, the context or situation we cannot come that conclusion. The conclusion requires adding to the context. The same way you could tell the guy next to me that the shrimp is safe to eat and then tell me that the shrimp is NOT safe to eat and both statements be true. Yes, assuming that all else is not equal. If all else is equal, as is bushido's example, then it cannot be the case the shrimp is both safe and not safe. With the limited amount of data supplied, the only logical conclusion is that one cannot be certain that he lied to either A or B. If you are to be certain, then YOU have to insert data that was not specified. No. When one instructs other in the way that bushido did, that means that the missing variables do not matter to the thought experiment. All else is equal. You seem to have trouble with variables, like everything must adhere to your perceptions with no possibility that you could be mistaken... All this because I understand what a change in context looks like, and you - evidently - do not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can a honest person know what a lie is? Only if they are later provided proof that such "statement" was originally a "lie", or they ask a rhetorical question that they already know the "truth" of. In other words, I believe a wholly honest person won't first do what is normal in some standards and take something said to them as "possibly the truth", because an honest person "expects" honesty back. So I believe they won't "recognize" a lie, until they are provided "proof" that said words were in fact a lie. Can a liar know he is lying? Depends. A "pathological" liar, lies constantly about everything, but part of them actually believes their "lies" to be "truth". Therefore, the concept of "lying" is actually confusing to them. A liar, opposite the honest person, will take most of which is passed their way as a "lie" until proven "truth". Conclusion (IMO): A liar has a more difficult time accepting "honesty". A honest person has difficulty accepting "lies". I think what truly separates the two is the "inner voice". The conscience of an honest person screams.. ..a liar only hears whispers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can a honest person know what a lie is? Only if they are later provided proof that such "statement" was originally a "lie", or they ask a rhetorical question that they already know the "truth" of. In other words, I believe a wholly honest person won't first do what is normal in some standards and take something said to them as "possibly the truth", because an honest person "expects" honesty back. So I believe they won't "recognize" a lie, until they are provided "proof" that said words were in fact a lie. Can a liar know he is lying? Depends. A "pathological" liar, lies constantly about everything, but part of them actually believes their "lies" to be "truth". Therefore, the concept of "lying" is actually confusing to them. A liar, opposite the honest person, will take most of which is passed their way as a "lie" until proven "truth". Conclusion (IMO): A liar has a more difficult time accepting "honesty". A honest person has difficulty accepting "lies". I think what truly separates the two is the "inner voice". The conscience of an honest person screams.. ..a liar only hears whispers. Interesting. I'm busy for the rest of a while, however I'll return looking forward to addressing this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Fri 03/23/12 07:56 PM
|
|
Again, you extrapolate data that is NOT there. So what? Drawing conclusions is a form of extrapolation. The act requires extrapolation. Extrapolation does not necessarily equate to changing the context of what was given. The context was specified, and I drew a conclusion based upon the specific context. The switch can be both safe and unsafe to 2 separate persons as I've illustrated. Well yes, of course. I'm not denying that possibility. However, without a change in bushido's knowledge of the switch, the context or situation we cannot come that conclusion. The conclusion requires adding to the context. The same way you could tell the guy next to me that the shrimp is safe to eat and then tell me that the shrimp is NOT safe to eat and both statements be true. Yes, assuming that all else is not equal. If all else is equal, as is bushido's example, then it cannot be the case the shrimp is both safe and not safe. With the limited amount of data supplied, the only logical conclusion is that one cannot be certain that he lied to either A or B. If you are to be certain, then YOU have to insert data that was not specified. No. When one instructs other in the way that bushido did, that means that the missing variables do not matter to the thought experiment. All else is equal. You seem to have trouble with variables, like everything must adhere to your perceptions with no possibility that you could be mistaken... All this because I understand what a change in context looks like, and you - evidently - do not. Bolded above proves I am right in not being "certain" he was lying. The only "conclusion" that I came to was not being certain about his truthfulness. My "scenario" did nothing except illustrate a potential situation fully fitting bushido's description. To deny that you will have to explain what his intended context and situation were. You may as well tell us what his knowledge of the switch was too. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Fri 03/23/12 08:24 PM
|
|
Well, if there is no relation then surely that can be stated. I mean, I didn't expect that anyone would doubt whether honesty and lies were related. I mean, really? How is it possible that they're not tied together at the hip, so to speak? I'm puzzled by the very notion.  This is not rocket science. It's like asking us to explain to you how children are born, or where they come from. Or how come you feel hungry when you haven't eaten for a day or two. Really. If you need to discuss this, in order to understand this, then... please finish this sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. So what is a lie? I mean what makes a lie what it is? I don't understand how a grown man or woman can seriously question others to give a definition of "lie". If you can't make one up on your own... then please finish this sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well if it is simple, it ought be simple to explain. I would appreciate seeing that done. No, it's too difficult for me to explain things that are very simple. Doesn't sound right to me. Is that what you believe? Oy, vey. Please finish this sentence: A .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wux,
Are you ok? Those responses come as a surprise to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The switch can be both safe and unsafe to 2 separate persons as I've illustrated. Well yes, of course. I'm not denying that possibility. However, without a change in bushido's knowledge of the switch, the context or situation we cannot come that conclusion. The conclusion requires adding to the context. Bolded above proves I am right in not being "certain" he was lying. Agreement with your scenario does not equate to proof in the way that you would like it to. The only "conclusion" that I came to was not being certain about his truthfulness. My "scenario" did nothing except illustrate a potential situation fully fitting bushido's description. To deny that you will have to explain what his intended context and situation were. You may as well tell us what his knowledge of the switch was too. To deny that all one must do is look at bushido's words, then look at yours. You changed the context. According to that change, I would agree with much of what you said. However, without that change, I do not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Well,I'confused. This topic is about knowing the definition of lie or knowing the actual lie in some case? How can any one be honest without knowing the truth or lie? Don't honesty depend on truth as well as lie? If I don't know who assassinated Gandhi,how can I be honest in replying? |
|
|
|
|
