When is it OK to lie?

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Fenris

Honest to God, Jeff--we've gotten along in the past and I'm telling you with 100% sincerity that I don't understand what your issue/concern/pick-your-word here is. Do you want this thread to run without hijacks? Do you just want me to stop posting but don't mind other hijacks?

I'm not making some sort of crypto-witty argument here, I really honest to God think you're willfully a) being a dick and b) constructing a rationale to excuse others for doing so as well. Roo says a lot of shit, but I don't see you busting out to put anything else she wants into practice. The argument that you're respecting her wishes is not at all valid.

Its bad enough that people continue to engage Roo in threads in GS. God knows why, she's like a puppy who also happens to have no legs and an annoying whimper. Helpless to affect change or bring others over to her point of view, annoying but only so far as you allow her to be. At some point you've just got to let it go, and not following her to a Pit thread to argue in favor of making life difficult for her would probably be a great jumping off place for that.

If I've focused only on you, well that's just it, a focus. Have you ever heard the joke about the cop who pulled over a speeding driver? The driver asks why the cop pulled him over when there were all these other people speeding too. The cop responds by asking the driver if he likes fishing. The driver says yes, and the cop says "Do you ever manage to catch all the fish?" Ba-dum-bum, that's the punchline.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Fenris, you are quite literally insulting our intelligence with this line of logic. Just because an action is possible, doesn't mean it is inevitable. You are blaming the victim and being a dick about it.

Dude. Go choke yourself.

[Jeff]

Bitch, please.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by The Superhero

Here's a picture of a hot redhead with nice boobs.

Well done!!

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I'm not making some sort of crypto-witty argument here, I really honest to God think you're willfully a) being a dick and b) constructing a rationale to excuse others for doing so as well. Roo says a lot of shit, but I don't see you busting out to put anything else she wants into practice. The argument that you're respecting her wishes is not at all valid.

Its bad enough that people continue to engage Roo in threads in GS. God knows why, she's like a puppy who also happens to have no legs and an annoying whimper. Helpless to affect change or bring others over to her point of view, annoying but only so far as you allow her to be. At some point you've just got to let it go, and not following her to a Pit thread to argue in favor of making life difficult for her would probably be a great jumping off place for that.

I see your point, but I find it a bit odd that you've latched onto Fenris the way you have in this thread. Is his excusing of other people's hijacks somehow worse than the hijacks themselves? Certainly people in this thread have been giving Roo a hard time, but they're doing so in an appropriate forum and obviously have a right to their own opinions of her based on her previous posts.

I'm not trying to jump your shit here, as I generally think you're awesome sauce, I'm just not getting the ire.

[nonny too]

Can we get back to the increasingly ludicrous analogies please?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I see your point, but I find it a bit odd that you've latched onto Fenris the way you have in this thread. Is his excusing of other people's hijacks somehow worse than the hijacks themselves? Certainly people in this thread have been giving Roo a hard time, but they're doing so in an appropriate forum and obviously have a right to their own opinions of her based on her previous posts.

I'm not trying to jump your shit here, as I generally think you're awesome sauce, I'm just not getting the ire.

Fenris was asking for it. Didn't you see what he was wearing?

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Bitch, please.

Every day
In every way
You're getting chimper and chimper

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Fenris

She posted it IN THE BOX. This is what she explicitly said she wanted for 15-ish interminable pages. Had she posted this in PPR or M2cents, she would NOT have gotten hijacked. She's not being hijacked all over the board--I agree that would be dickish behavior. She's being hijacked in threads posted in The Box where hijacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. And she was outright ASKING for hijacks.

First, let me say that I was not ASKING for hijacks. I can't stop them and haven't asked them to be stopped since that would be useless. But I didn't ask anyone to create distractions to this thread.

Originally Posted by Fenris

What's a shame is that she's wasting what are actually pretty good OPs by putting them in The Box. If she wasn't such an insane, paranoid freak, she could have started what..four? good threads in PPR and one in BLTP. But no. She wanted "Free for all threads" so she put 'em in the one place in the board where hijacks are encouraged. She's getting to see first-hand the results of her social experiment.

I know it gives you pleasure to call me nasty, insulting names so I'll just highlight it so you can feel good about yourself.

I'm not wasting good threads by posting them in the Box. I've had some really great discussion so far in the ones I've already started. In case you missed it, and your posting gives no indication that you read very many, if any, of my posts in the thread you're posting in, here's some info. from an earlier post in this thread about why I'm posting in the Box.

Originally Posted by Roo

Here's a few reasons I'm posting in the Box at the moment:

1) The ground rules are more level in the Box. Other people can hijack, but so can I. That's not true in the rest of the forum. For example, you created a substantive part of the hijack here to make this thread about the board instead of about the topic. You could have taken it to another thread. It wouldn't have been impossible, just nearly, right? Several, if not most, of the hijacks in the past that were credited to me were actually where I started discussing things with YOU.

2) I feel that the rules in PPR as they're currently enforced (or not), aren't very conducive to interesting discussions. IMO, they have a better chance in the Box. So far, of my few threads that I've started so far, I've been very pleased at the level of discussion and the variety of posters that have joined in.

3) Several people suggested to me in my free for all forum suggestion thread that I post in the Box to see how it works. I'm doing that.

There are more reasons. That's just a quick list off the top of my head.

(sorry to all the people who actually read posts in the thread to re-post it like that)

Given the reasons for my posting in the Box, if I hadn't posted these four threads in the Box, I wouldn't have posted them at all. I would not have posted this thread in PPR because IMO, it would be a massive waste of time and effort. Based on my observations, it would have been modded to squeeze out any interesting point too quickly for the effort to have been worth it.

I have a list of several more topics that I thought might be interesting to discuss, but there would be no point in starting them in PPR. As I've noted before, even with the hijacks, they have a much better chance of becoming interesting in the Box. My attempts at starting PPR threads have been much less successful than the threads I've started here in the Box for bringing out diverse and interesting discussion.

You're claiming that my threads are my attempt at a social experiment because I'm posting in the Box. But then I don't see why you're not hijacking Qwisp's thread. Is that some social experiment just because she's continuing a thread in the Box? She's posting in the Box for her own reasons. I don't think my reasons are any less valid than hers.

[Jaglavak]

I'm gonna keep licking the side of your face until you're in a better mood. Take your time, I have lots of slobber.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

I'm gonna keep licking the side of your face until you're in a better mood. Take your time, I have lots of slobber.

::jumps on Jag::

::licks his face back::

I do feel a little bad for the people who invested time and effort in the beginning of this thread. I haven't decided how I can get back to them, but I will, whether in this thread or another one.

[hroark2112]

Originally Posted by Roo

I would not have posted this thread in PPR because IMO, it would be a massive waste of time and effort. Based on my observations, it would have been modded to squeeze out any interesting point too quickly for the effort to have been worth it.

I'm concerned about you. An internet intervention may be in order.

After re-reading your original post, I'm left asking...how long did it take you to type that? 2 minutes? 3 tops? Is 2 or 3 minutes really a "massive waste of time and effort" to you?

How exactly do you think it would be modded, had you posted this in a more proper forum? Giraffe has already stated that he would have modded the hijackings and threadshitting, and that's all. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that what we're paying the mods to do? OK, so we're not paying them, but isn't that what they're supposed to do?

Honestly, your paranoia is reaching epic proportions. I don't know you from the other board, as I was only there for a short time before migrating over here, but you seem to have some serious, deep seated issues affecting your very existence!! Do you go through your non-internet life in this same manner? If so, please seek professional help, and do so quickly.

Have you honestly tried starting a thread such as this one in the proper forum? If so, please share with the class how it was modded in such a manner that you feel you're being persecuted for being Roo.

I'm a mod on another forum, and I despise having to use my mod tools for anything more serious than moving a thread into the proper forum and reviewing classified ads. I do it to help the board run well, but if I go through a day without doing any kind of mod action, I don't fall asleep tossing and turning, thinking something has gotten by me! It's a good day when I can just enjoy a board and not have to do any kind of work. I can't speak for the mods here, but I am sure they don't stay awake at night, wondering what Roo will post next!!

[Roo]

Originally Posted by hroark2112

I'm concerned about you. An internet intervention may be in order.

Thanks for your faux concern. It's faux appreciated.

There's something you can do that would really help with the problem. And only you can help. Here's how you (specifically you hroark2112) can help:

Don't post to any thread I start.

Thanks bunches!!

[Tamponsteve]

Attention attention attention

Bitch about getting what you want when you started all this bullshit

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I see your point, but I find it a bit odd that you've latched onto Fenris the way you have in this thread. Is his excusing of other people's hijacks somehow worse than the hijacks themselves? Certainly people in this thread have been giving Roo a hard time, but they're doing so in an appropriate forum and obviously have a right to their own opinions of her based on her previous posts.

I'm not trying to jump your shit here, as I generally think you're awesome sauce, I'm just not getting the ire.

The ire was me leading with my feelings and not my head, it was unwarranted and for the insults I owe Fenris an apology. I should have lead off with my last post on the matter and gotten right to the matter of pointing out that his behavior, and that of the other hijackers in this thread was plain ol' dickish. It was an invitation to bullying and that is neither cool nor is it something I want to see on this board.

The other people don't get a pass, but I don't have the time or energy (particularly if I am checking in from work) to focus on everything that every poster says. Fenris probably caught my attention because he was the first person I noticed actively trying to justify himself. Man, I did not like to see that at all.

[Darmund]

So do I get a pass because I wasn't trying to justify anything, or not? Because I just thought it was funny to poke Roo for being an attention whore troll? Rest assured, a significant portion of my self-esteem rides on your answer.

[Jeff]

I don't want to say that you're a bad guy, but if I had a gun with 3 bullets, and I was in a room with you, Hitler and Stalin, I'd shoot you three times and go for a beer with the other two.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I don't want to say that you're a bad guy, but if I had a gun with 3 bullets, and I was in a room with you, Hitler and Stalin, I'd shoot you three times and go for a beer with the other two.

You're a moron too. Also, wtf with chate.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I don't want to say that you're a bad guy, but if I had a gun with 3 bullets, and I was in a room with you, Hitler and Stalin, I'd shoot you three times and go for a beer with the other two.

If I was the kind of person who would type "LOL", I'd do it here. I'm not, but that was pretty fucking funny.

[Darmund]

BTW I heard roo has a poo.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Roo

First, let me say that I was not ASKING for hijacks. I can't stop them and haven't asked them to be stopped since that would be useless.

confer:

Originally Posted by Roo

Maybe you should tell your husband. Then perhaps he and you could do something more entertaining than posting off-topics posts in this thread.

Now, as to hijacks. If someone is trying to talk about something and you wander in with a hijack, you're being dickish. And to be fair, if I do that, I'm being dickish. In the Box, you're allowed to be dickish like that. That's part of the nature of an unmoderated forum. And one of the reasons why folks generally don't start serious threads in the Box, unless they've been Boxed themselves.

So, the folks (including me, whenever I've done it) are completely within the rules to step into a Box thread with blatant digressions, hijacks, threadshits or links to strange pictures. You do have to admit though, that it's dickish to do. I don't see it as a big deal to admit. That, and I thought I'd try and say dickish five times in a post. Around that point, it stops feeling like a word.

[hroark2112]

Originally Posted by Roo

Thanks for your faux concern. It's faux appreciated.

There's something you can do that would really help with the problem. And only you can help. Here's how you (specifically you hroark2112) can help:

Don't post to any thread I start.

Thanks bunches!!

Just so you know, I personally think it's OK to lie to someone on the internet when they're being a fucking moron. My concern was a lie.

Thanks bunches!!

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

confer:

confer some more:

Originally Posted by Roo

I agree. If this is the most interesting thing you can find to do, go for it!

As I said in your quote that you bolded, I haven't asked them to be stopped. Was your example supposed to show that I did?

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

Now, as to hijacks. If someone is trying to talk about something and you wander in with a hijack, you're being dickish. And to be fair, if I do that, I'm being dickish. In the Box, you're allowed to be dickish like that. That's part of the nature of an unmoderated forum. And one of the reasons why folks generally don't start serious threads in the Box, unless they've been Boxed themselves.

As I said, multiple times, and others have too. No one is saying that you aren't allowed to be dickish in a thread in the Box.

But if people think other people are being dickish, people get to tell them that too.

By bringing in only part of a conversation that implies I said something that I didn't say without giving the whole context, you can add yourself to the former list.

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

So, the folks (including me, whenever I've done it) are completely within the rules to step into a Box thread with blatant digressions, hijacks, threadshits or links to strange pictures. You do have to admit though, that it's dickish to do. I don't see it as a big deal to admit. That, and I thought I'd try and say dickish five times in a post. Around that point, it stops feeling like a word.

I guess if you needed this thread to admit what you are, maybe it served your purpose.

I hope it was cathartic for you.

[Ichigodaisuki]

Step One, Cut a hole in the box

[hroark2112]

[Ichigodaisuki]

ooh babby, you makin me crabby

[hroark2112]

[Ichigodaisuki]

Don't hassle the Hoff.
And that sucked.

[hroark2112]

Any time we need a good laugh in the office, I load up either The Hoff or this one:



The guy in the cube next to me looks JUST like Cubby with a goatee. He hates when we play that song, but any time it comes on the radio when he's driving, he cranks it up and calls me!

[Fartiste]

Originally Posted by Roo

FART!

This post has been farted on by the Fartiste

[Fartiste]

Originally Posted by Tamponsteve

FART!

This post has been farted on by the Fartiste

[Roo]

I'm going back to some of the on-topic posts to answer some of them.

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

I think I'm trying to be funny and charming, and dig back at the person who is being rude enough to ask inappropriate questions. Also I want them to not be able to determine the actual truth. To a direct question, a lie of omission is often ineffective. You've certainly experienced that in your behavior on this board.

Does being funny and charming trump making an affirmative lie? Are affirmative lies and lies of omission of equal value?

Originally Posted by severe delays

Of course there is a lie. By not disclosing the amount you omit the truth. It doesn't matter how you choose to phrase it there is a control of information there. Further to this, you may also wish to negotiate which does not work well if you have flatly refused to show trust by being open. So you hedge a little and see where it gets you. It's a lie but no more nor less of a lie than if you just refused to answer the question or answered it by ignoring it.

Let's go back to the definition of lying that I set out in the OP.

To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true.

It doesn't cover lies of omission actually. But even if it did, your definition of truth-telling would have you telling other people the best ways to take advantage of them.
So let's use another definition of lying to see if that would help.

A lie is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment or repercussion for one's actions.

From wiki
In that definition, intention takes importance. If the intention is to deceive to gain something, then it's a lie. But in your example, the lie is not intended to deceive to gain something, but to protect something, namely your privacy or protection of your assets. Should intention make a difference?

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Fish

In other words, ignore the person's question entirely and invent your own question. That doesn't always work either.

If you do this, especially looking for a house, you'll end up wasting tremendous amounts of time — that is, if the salesman even wants to bother with you. The more of his time you waste, the less likely he's going to want to negotiate with you favorably when it comes time to make a deal. "Oh, right, this is the dingbat that made me show her every house within 14 miles. I'm gonna charge that little twat extra."

Your example doesn't match reality. There is no hidden house market. Pretty much all houses that you would want to buy are advertised. You can see the advertisements yourself. If the sales agent is giving you a hard time or charging more commissions, you can just go to a different agent. It's easy enough to know what you bid and what the difference is. All of it is spelled out in the contract as required disclosures.

Whether it "works" or not, is not the criteria for whether something is a lie. Telling the truth might be more inconvenient and even be more detrimental. But by stating something in the affirmative that's not a lie, you've chosen not to lie and you've gotten at least a little more clarity than if you chose not to say anything.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Roo

Your example doesn't match reality. There is no hidden house market. Pretty much all houses that you would want to buy are advertised.

Let me guess: you're white, aren't you?

Try telling a real estate agent over the phone that you're black, and see what houses you're shown. Or better yet, gay.

There is definitely a hidden house market.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Fish

Let me guess: you're white, aren't you?

Try telling a real estate agent over the phone that you're black, and see what houses you're shown. Or better yet, gay.

There is definitely a hidden house market.

But you don't have to rely on what the sales agent shows you. Houses are listed in the newspaper and online and on MLS. They're advertised to the widest audience possible because the sellers don't usually care who they sell their house to. They just want to sell their house. If you have a bad sales agent, you don't have to rely on them to give you information. You can move to the next sales agent.

Tie this back to lying. Are you saying that lying is necessary because if you don't, things may be inconvenient or more difficult. I'm not arguing with you there. Truth-telling can be very inconvenient. That's why people choose the easier route. But are you saying that it's justified because of the inconvenience?

[Roo]

Originally Posted by HongKongFooey

I just lied to a friend of mine because it was easier than yelling the truth. Am I gong to hell?

Yes. But lying is one of the least of the reasons why.

[Uthrecht]

Yeah, this is what I get for posting in here. Or at the least, trying to address two separate points in one post. No matter, I'll move on.

[The Artist formerly known as Opal]

Originally Posted by Roo

Thanks for your faux concern. It's faux appreciated.

There's something you can do that would really help with the problem. And only you can help. Here's how you (specifically you hroark2112) can help:

Don't post to any thread I start.

Thanks bunches!!

I understand your frustration. How dare people who disagree
post in your thread.

[Ichigodaisuki]

Originally Posted by The Artist formerly known as Opal

I understand your frustration. How dare people who disagree
post in your thread.

Opal, aren't you lying right now? I don't believe you mean what you wrote above.
You understand what was written and why. Roo is providing specific advice to a specific problem posted.
The juggalo thread is missing something without you.

[The Artist formerly known as Opal]

Originally Posted by Ichigodaisuki

Opal, aren't you lying right now? I don't believe you mean what you wrote above.
You understand what was written and why. Roo is providing specific advice to a specific problem posted.
The juggalo thread is missing something without you.

Of course I'm not lying - the only lie would be to deny my Art. I've explained this before.

[Parthenokinesis]

Originally Posted by Roo

Does being funny and charming trump making an affirmative lie? Are affirmative lies and lies of omission of equal value?

My right to privacy trumps your right to "truth" How I safeguard my privacy against your assault is to my discretion. Being funny and charming is just gravy. I don't value the types of lies on an ethical scale, only on situational effectiveness.

All that said, I'm generally a truthful person. It's the easiest thing to remember, it takes the least amount of effort, and I don't particularly enjoy the responsibility of misleading. But when it's necessary, I don't have any ethical qualms.

[Roo]

OK, I think I cut out most of the relevant parts of some of the earlier part of the discussion. I thought about it for a bit.

I think people are conflating lying with truth-telling. They're not the same. Forget what I said about lies of omission because lies of omission don't exist when the issue is lying as I've defined it. It only comes into play when we're talking about truth-telling.

I don't think it's a semantic difference. Truth-telling is much broader than lying, although there's a big deal of overlap.

Lying, as I defined it in the OP, is about the affirmative making of a statement when the person making the statement believes it to be false.

To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true.

So to lie, you have to make a statement whereas in deception or lack of truth-telling, you can just remain silent.

In truth-telling, some of the issues are ones of privacy, deception (to self and others), intention, honesty and other competing values.

In the book The Dance of Deception: A Guide to Authenticity and Truth-Telling in Women's Relationships by Harriet Lerner, she talks about the myriad ways that people avoid truth-telling:

We say, she fibbed, fabricated, exaggerated, minimized,
withheld.
We say, she told a white lie, a partial truth, a falsehood,
a tall tale.
We say, she embroidered her story, se pulled the wool
over our eyes.
We say, she keeps secrets (and also, she can't keep a
secret)
[she goes on for a another page with phrases like this]

Our language provides us with incredibly rich possibilities for describing our departures from truth-telling. Different words and phrases evoke varied images of deception, connoting a range of implications about intention and motivation, and the seriousness of harm done. We may have learned to associate some of these words more with women, more with men. In either case, we have more words to describe the nuances of how we deceive each other than to describe how we love.

(bolded for emphasis

That last line floors me.

The issue of truth-telling is very broad and complex, and it also lacks the moral component that the issue of lying does. In the OP, the morality is based on lying, not lack of truth-telling. Again, there's overlap, but they're not synonymous.

We can continue to discuss truth-telling as well as lying in this thread, but I think it's important to point out the distinction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Jeff

You have bizarre sense of what is "too personal" to reveal in business settings. Especially when the end result of that business would be to hand over that sum of money which was too personal to reveal in the first place.

Above Fish is describing the decision to withhold information and is weighing off the privacy issues vs. honesty.

It's a truth-telling issue.

Originally Posted by severe delays

It's not really just a property thing. You can apply the same logic to pretty much any area of sales. To take one of the other examples, you may also not tell the truth if a policeman asks have you ever committed a crime. If you're trying to casually walk away from the house you just burgled it's in your interests to lie. Though I suppose we also have to consider that pretty much everyone has broken some law at some point in their lives. So it's not possible for the majority of us to say 'No, I've never committed a crime.' But we probably would to a policeman because even if our crime was driving 1mph over the speed limit ten years ago we most likely don't want a lengthy conversation about our criminal habits. So we'll lie there to ease progress.

This is a lying issue if the person makes an affirmative statement as sd posits and has committed a crime, but a convoluted one as Jeff points out below. It would be rare for people to ask an open-ended question without expecting a bizarre answer.

Originally Posted by severe delays

If you're caught red handed that's a different matter. But if a policeman was interviewing you as a potential murderer of Dr Black then even if you innocent of doing so you'd lie about having ever committed a crime because right now you are trying to persuade this guy that you weren't in the ballroom with a lead pipe.

Originally Posted by severe delays

Fair enough. But when I'm questioned along with everyone else in the house about who killed Dr Black I'm going to deny having ever committed a crime. And then I'm going to say that I have no idea who killed the good doctor. And then I'm going to go and watch TV.

A truthful person will confess to the policeman that they have committed crimes. And will then spend the next twenty minutes explaining exactly what crimes. And thusly pissing off the policeman with tales of speeding and sweets stolen as a toddler. And they will be questioned pretty damn closely by the aggrieved copper who will then wander off and check their record. They'll find no convictions probably but the truthful person will have missed the vital twenty minutes of the TV programme and won't know what's going on when they get back to it.

Again, this is about truth-telling. And something to be weighed off in truth-telling is relevance. If people ask open-ended questions, then there's a limit to how much information is truly relevant to the question.

Originally Posted by Fish

Oh, nonsense.

You can't possibly be telling me that it's good, sound business practice during any financial negotiation to reveal everything you know. Businessmen do this all the time. They're asked about the company and they'll say things are going swimmingly. They're asked about a future product and they'll say it's exciting. They want to generate maximum revenue for their company; it's their job. The last thing you'll hear from a CEO or a marketer or a company rep is the truthful ("This is a shabby product we bodged together from off-the-shelf parts because a more nimble and innovative competitor beat us to the market. We didn't even see this product coming. But we're going to adopt a slightly lower price point to give us a fatter margin") or the evasive ("I cannot reveal anything about this hypothetical upcoming product, or name its features, or even whether it exists, but if it does exist, I would want you to buy one or more"). The CEO is speaking to three audiences: competitors, shareholders and buyers (and maybe to regulators). His message can't be 100% truthful or 100% evasive; inevitably, it's going to include something he wants us to believe, but he isn't totally sure is true ("It's going to be the next [competitor]-killer! It'll be the biggest thing ever. Everybody's going to want one").

Any negotiation between buyer and seller is called haggling and it's as old as salesmanship itself. You're telling me that revealing your budgetary limit is standard operating procedure? I'm saying it's too personal — you want to get the best deal possible, and you do this by concealing what you'd really pay; the salesman wants the biggest commission he can get, so he will conceal how much he can really cut the price by.

Fish is pointing out more statements about truth-telling or deception. And they're weighed off against business interests. It would be lying if someone made a false affirmative statement in the interests of the business.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

So is it a lie when my son ask me if I'm going to die and I respond "not for a very long time" not really knowing when I'm going to die (but really wanting him to go to sleep and not have bad dreams)?

I think this is a lie. You made a statement knowing the answer is not true. It's a tiny bit shaky because it might be true, but you know that you don't know and said it anyway.

I guess it could be deception since it's not as blatant as a lie.

I'm making these guesses based on this article Americans conflicted about lying.

It can be hard to get people to face the truth sometimes. Especially about lying.

You don’t want your kids to eat too much, so you say all the cookies are gone. You don’t feel like going out, so you tell your date something important came up. You’re overloaded with errands, so you call in sick.

Lies, all of them — but we don’t really like calling them that. In a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll, over half of respondents said lying was never justified. Yet in the same poll, up to two-thirds said it was OK to lie in certain situations, like protecting someone’s feelings.

And your statement seems more to me like one of the examples than not, but you can compare them too.

If it makes you feel better, 2/3 of Americans do the same.

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

Or when my daughter ask me, if she might lose me when we say goodbye in the morning, and I whisper softly: "I have never ever gone away from you, without coming back" as a self-fulfilling prophecy because I'm with her that minute (and I really don't want her to be late for school again)?

I don't see the lie here since the statement is true (if it is). It's just not the entire picture which is more about truth-telling than lying, I think.

You're weighing off your child's feelings against the amount of truth that the child needs to know.

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

Or if I say that I really like the subject of this thread (and choose to not mention how I feel about all the nonsense going on in here as well)?

Another truth-telling issue.

You're weighing off the amount of truth you'd like to reveal to the other members of the message board.

[Fartiste]

Originally Posted by Fartaroo

I'm going back to some of the on-topic posts to FART on some of them.

Does being funny and charming trump making an affirmative FART? Or are affirmative FARTS and silent-but-deadly FARTS of equal value?

Let's go back to the definition of Farting that I set out in the OP.

It doesn't cover Farts of omission actually. But even if it did, your definition of Farting would have you farting on other people in the best ways to take advantage of them.

So let's use another definition of farting to see if that would help.

In that definition, intention takes importance. If the intention is to deceive with a silent-but-deadly fart is to gain something, then it's a bad fart. But in your example, the fart is not intended to deceive to gain something, but to protect something, namely your privacy or protection of your gas. Should intention make a difference?

This post has been farted on by the Fartiste

[Fartiste]

Originally Posted by Fartzillaroo

I think this is a fart. You made a fart knowing the smell is not true. It's a tiny bit shaky because it might be honest gas, but you know that you don't know and said it anyway.

I guess it could be burping since it's not as blatant as a fart.

And your statement seems more to me like one of the examples of farting than burping, but you can compare them too.

If it makes you feel better, 2/3 of Americans fart. The rest hold it in.

I don't see farting here since the air is clean (if it is). It's just not the entire picture which is more about breathing than farting I think.

You're weighing off your child's feelings against the amount of fart that your colon can hold.

You're weighing off the amount of truth you'd like to reveal to the other members of the message board.

This Post Has Been Farted On By The Fartiste

[Ichigodaisuki]

Originally Posted by Fartiste

This Post Has Been Farted On By The Fartiste

You lied when you said you didn't fart.
Liar! We know it was you.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

My right to privacy trumps your right to "truth" How I safeguard my privacy against your assault is to my discretion. Being funny and charming is just gravy. I don't value the types of lies on an ethical scale, only on situational effectiveness.

All that said, I'm generally a truthful person. It's the easiest thing to remember, it takes the least amount of effort, and I don't particularly enjoy the responsibility of misleading. But when it's necessary, I don't have any ethical qualms.

Another truth-telling issue.

Harriet Lerner agrees with you. She writes:

I do not seek privacy primarily to protect my dignity and ultimate separateness as a human being. Thus, I publically defend my "right to privacy." In contrast, I don't recall ever using the phrase, my "right to secrecy," although surely I have the right to keep some secrets, my own and others. Secrets may, as lies always do, demand justification. In contrast, it is the violation of privacy, not the guarding of it, that demands justification.

I agree with her and you. . .to a point. Privacy trumps truth-telling, but adding another lie adds another possibility to be misunderstood.

I've noticed several people who will evade questions by making supposedly outrageous statements in response. But sometimes people take the statements that are supposed to be 'outrageous' as serious and there's another problem in communication. So I think the lying does have the same problem as intentional lies.

[eleanorigby]

Quoted for the nonsense that it is:

Originally Posted by Roo

I think people are conflating lying with truth-telling. They're not the same.

If this is what you get out of this trainwreck, there is no point in having a discussion. Not that a discussion is what is occurring here. I waded through 5 pages of this dreck to find you have no real point, but you may well have an agenda. Every other post re lies and lying you have shot down or dismissed. And now you are going to inform the well educated and intelligent folks here that they are "conflating" lying with truth-telling? Do you honestly think that the people would mix the 2 up? I can't believe you are for real. Are you under the influence of medication or drugs?

What is it with you and Giraffe? If you dislike things here so much, why do you stay? Note that I am not asking you to leave. I don't want you to leave. I keep hoping that someday I'll be able to figure out your reasoning process and I say that without malice or snark. Right now I can only marvel at your intrepidity.

[Fartiste]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Quoted for the nonsense that it is:

I can't believe you are for real. Are you under the influence of medication or drugs?

It's farts. She snorts big jucy soggey farts. It rots her brain and makes her kkkkkkkkrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzy!

Fart.

This post has been replied to and farted in by the Fartiste

[Bing Crosby]

And now, a musical interlude:

I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
But my legs ain't bowed and my cheeks ain't tan
I'm a cowboy who never saw a cow
Never roped a steer cause I don't know how
Sure ain't a fixin to start in now
Yippie yi yo kayah

I'm an old cowhand and I come down from the Rio Grande
And I learned to ride, ride, ride 'fore I learned to stand
I'm a riding fool who is up to date
I know every trail in the Lone Star State
Cause I ride the range in a Ford V-8
Yippie yi yo kayah

We're old cowhands from the Rio Grande
And we come to town just to hear the band
We know all the songs that the cowboys know
'Bbout the big corral where the doggies go
We learned them all on the radio
Yippie yi yo kayah


I'm an old cowhand
Oh yes, Mr. Bing.
Too hot for you, Uncle Fudd?
Down from the Rio Grande
Oh where the west is wild all around the borderland
Where the buffalo roam around the zoo
and the Injuns run up a rug or two
and the old Bar X is just a barbecue, yeah
Yippie yi yo kayah

I'm a pioneer who began from scratch
I don't bat an eye in a shootin' match.
They don't call me Elmer, they call me Satch.
Yippie yi yo kayah
Yippie yi yo kayah

Get along little horsy
Get along little horsy
Yippie yi yo kayah, oh!

Thank's folks! Now let's go back to the thread.