Lying is always bad - why???

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps if you take the time to understand another's perspective you would not continue to proliferate your stupid straw men arguments assigning values where none exist.

I don't think even you understand your own perspective - please point out where my strawmen were please; i.e. explain how I formulated a weaker version of your binary brained argument all lies = bad, and then claimed to have beaten *your* argument by way of knocking down the weaker one.
Also waiting for those quotes which demonstrate I am so morally depraved as you made out a few pages ago.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Agerg
I don't think even you understand your own perspective - please point out where my strawmen were please; i.e. explain how I formulated a weaker version of your binary brained argument all lies = bad, and then claimed to have beaten *your* argument by way of knocking down the weaker one.
Also waiting for those quotes which demonstrate I am so morally depraved as you made out a few pages ago.

Thanks in advance.

i set the same challenge to you Agers, tell the forum what principles might have a bearing on how i view lying, what specific biblical references have shaped that view and how they are applicable in specific circumstances, if you cannot, nor will not, then all your assertions with regard to myself amount to nothing but a projection of your own mind and a pile of straw.

please dont thank me, its a thankless task trying to reach you people.

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm not so sure whether this is a jab at me or not; do you mean
a) One is low if privately they hold the opinion that some cat drawing has no properties they find aesthetically or technically pleasing, and cannot reliably assign any length of time it took for them to render it (so they cannot conclude they worked dilligently) even if they don't state it? or ...[text shortened]... so to convince himself there is something to like), if (b) then I completely agree with you!

b). 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
I don't need to ask myself that; it is immediately obvious that the recipient of a lie will be in possession, [b]at that particular instance of time, of a "skewed view of reality". That's pretty much the point of a lie - in that you hope to convey information which is false!

Or if you charge me with avoiding the question here - yes, the individual ge thless human being?" then a lie on the part of X would somehow make things worse for Y! 😕

[/b]My issue is that you hold this is both permanent and detrimental in all cases!

I never said that it is "permanent" nor did I imply it. Why do you assert that I did?

Originally posted by Agerg
Having answered this question in the affirmative in my last response I can delve a little deeper into the realms of absurdity your somewhat binary proposition, that lying is always detrimental by skewing ones view of reality, entails.

Suppose person X currently believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E} and also believes the true statement F which has no bearing ...[text shortened]... view of reality from the perspective of X more skewed in this case if he recieves a lie??? 😕

If anything is "absurd", it is your ridiculously contrived scenario.

If Y knows X believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E}, Y should straighten out X regarding them as well as tell X the truth about F. If Y doesn't know, then the right thing to do would be to tell the truth about F. Regardless, the right thing for Y to do is to tell X the truth.

Ask yourself this: Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you actually remember what you post on these forums, in fact do you remember what you post even in this thread? This is what you posted in response to Zahlanzi on page 4 of this thread (my emphasis) -

yes, but at least [b]i aint a liar and neither was Christ.

and now your saying

[i]I have never claimed that i have not lied, i mere our massive ego gets in the way and you can't face admitting your wrong. You have no humility.[/b]

[/i]The irony is that hypocrisy that Jesus warned against and commanded against comes out so often and so clearly with so many Christians, especially the fundies like RC. I doubt you'll ever get him to admit the truth about anything, no less about himself. As far as I can tell, he believes he is being rational as he incessantly talks in circles around issues in order to avoid them. They are poster children for ego defense mechanisms.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
My issue is that you hold this is both permanent and detrimental in all cases!

I never said that it is "permanent" nor did I imply it. Why do you assert that I did?[/b]

If the retention of a "skewed-reality" induced by some lie was a transient thing and made them feel good so long as they remembered it then that would contradict the condition you try to impose that ALL lies are detrimental to the recipient (since once this skewed reality has worn off the good effects will not necessarily be countered by any ill effects as is necessary to bear out your claim).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If anything is "absurd", it is your ridiculously contrived scenario.

If Y knows X believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E}, Y should straighten out X regarding them as well as tell X the truth about F. If Y doesn't know, then the right thing to do would be to tell the truth about F. Regardless, the right thing for Y to do is to tell X the truth.

Ask yourself this: Would a rational person rather hear the truth or a lie? Why?

Well your assertion lies are always bad Reveal Hidden Content is a universal statement. I therefore have all the freedom in the world to hunt down the most ridiculous examples I choose in a bid to demonstrate your assertion is false.

As regards your "solution" to my scenario, you miss the point in that following your logic(?) it must always be true that a reduction of reality-skew upon receipt of this lie is somehow bad!
It is irrelevant that from the default state of having no information (true or false) one can optimise the "good" by telling some other truthful statement since we are concerned only that from the default state the lie makes things worse.


Too right I'd like to hear a lie sometimes! - especially if the truth serves no virtuous purpose other than to avoid false information - and the lie might inspire me on account of this false information, with confidence and optimism to act such that the truth is no longer pertinent anyway. Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Agerg
If the retention of a "skewed-reality" induced by some lie was a transient thing and made them feel good so long as they remembered it then that would contradict the condition you try to impose that ALL lies are detrimental to the recipient (since once this skewed reality has worn off the good effects will not necessarily be countered by any ill effects as is necessary to bear out your claim).

Once again, "I never said that it is 'permanent' nor did I imply it." You really need to rethink this.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well your assertion lies are always bad [hidden](which you try to substantiate merely by saying \"but lies give a skewed perception of reality!!!\" - no sh**! so!?)[/hidden] is a universal statement. I therefore have all the freedom in the world to hunt down the most ridiculous examples I choose in a bid to demonstrate your assertion is false.

As regards yo erk ad-hom that I am not rational on the basis that I don\'t agree with you![/hidden]

Perhaps you've lost sight of my point:
"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."

A desire to have lies told to oneself is not rational. Believe me, this assessment is anything but "knee-jerk" nor is it an "ad-hom".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps you've lost sight of my point:
"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."

I'm well aware of your point ThinkOfOne; you've restated it about five times in response to my arguments to suggest why I should not believe it.

Unless I'm mistaken debates should go along the lines of

Person X asserts A
Person Y argues against A with B
Person X trys to show B is invalid because of C
Person Y argues that C is invalid because of D

It shouldn't go along the lines of

Person X asserts A
Person Y argues against A with B
Person X argues B is automatically invalid because of A
Person Y acknowledges X asserts A and with B ignored tries to attack the logic of A with C
Person X argues C is automatically invalid because of A
Person Y acknowledges X asserts A and with B and C ignored tries to attack the logic of A with D
Person X argues D is automatically invalid because of A
.
.
.
and so on!

I'm well aware that you claim it undermines trust (and from all lies are bad, consequently always undermines trust)...I just disagree with you that this overpowers all the good a lie can bring in all cases; and I'm sure that the next argument I present to justify this will be met with the same argument that I missed the point in not seeing that "Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality."

I'm going to let this one go.

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm well aware of your point ThinkOfOne; you've restated it about five times in response to my arguments to suggest why I should not believe it.

Unless I'm mistaken debates should go along the lines of

Person X asserts A
Person Y argues against A with B
Person X argues trys to show B is invalid because of C
Person Y argues that C is invalid because of ...[text shortened]... e you, it gives them a skewed view of reality."[/i]

I'm going to let this one go.

C'mon. Your argument had gotten away from my point. It's been a little while since I posted that and thought perhaps you'd lost sight of it.

You honestly believe that lying in no way undermines the trust between individuals?

You honestly can't see how giving someone a skewed view of reality compounds the problem of people having trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe?

You honestly can't see how your scenario does not address my point in any meaningful way?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon. Your argument had gotten away from my point. It's been a little while since I posted that and thought perhaps you'd lost sight of it.

You honestly believe that lying in no way undermines the trust between individuals?

You honestly can't see how giving someone a skewed view of reality compounds the problem of people having trouble having real ...[text shortened]...
You honestly can't see how your scenario does not address my point in any meaningful way?

C'mon. Your argument had gotten away from my point. It's been a little while since I posted that and thought perhaps you'd lost sight of it.
I don't believe it is off point; my reasoning here is that in
"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you. If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality."
The part I bolded is the consequence of a lie (believed) which you suppose is always a bad thing. My strategy has been to show there exists at least one counter-example to suggest this errant view of reality isn't necessarily a bad thing, and supplied the following examples:

a child at the age of four however is hardly going to take anything away from the lie one likes his drawing other than a short lived feeling of contentment that he has done something good. I somehow doubt when he turns eight, say, he's going to ruminate on the time he asked me whether I liked his picture then and I said yes, in response to my now, more critical or politely evasive evaluation of his work.

One could search further along this line and suppose some child with severe learning difficulties finally manages, after an excessive amount of coaxing, to eat his dinner on his own without having to be spoon fed is congratulated excitedly with the statement "cleverReveal Hidden Content

note: he always fails, due to his disability, to be anything close to what would be regarded as clever, and the speaker knows this

boy - you managed to eat that all by yourself!!!"

Now having been hit twice with the same statement (rephrased) that I'm actively trying to undermine I switch tactics (still a search for a counter-example) with

Indeed if it was true that persons X and Y both thought Y was a thoroughly worthless human being - then if we accept your position on this matter and suppose Y asks X "am I a thoroughly worthless human being?" then a lie on the part of X would somehow make things worse for Y!

Suppose person X currently believes false statements {A,B,C,D,E} and also believes the true statement F which has no bearing on any of {A,B,C,D,E}.
Now suppose that
A false implies B is false
B false implies C is false
C false implies D is false
D false implies E is false
and X asks some other person Y "Does F true imply A is false?"

If Y tells the truth that F true does not imply A is false then X retains his belief in five false statements; on the otherhand if Y lies and says F true does imply A is false then X ends up only believing one false statement!

It is only the latter you have actually addressed by saying it was ridiculously contrived and then making astatement which though possibly true in some cases, is irrelevant to the statement of yours I'm arguing against.

The other part of your quote I intend to deal with once I've established a foot-hold with this part. I fail to see how I'm off topic!

You honestly believe that lying in no way undermines the trust between individuals?
Assuming you accidently dropped the all important all in "undermines the trust between [all] individuals?"
then I have no empirical or logical reason believe this. On the otherhand if you're asking if I think there are some (not all) cases where this is true then fair enough, I don't believe it in no way undermines the trust between some individuals.

You honestly can't see how giving someone a skewed view of reality compounds the problem of people having trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe?
This is the part of your argument I've been focusing on for which you believe I'm missing the point.

You honestly can't see how your scenario does not address my point in any meaningful way?
It is a valid counter example - indeed one can substitute those variables A-E with meaningful statements such as, for example, stupid WW2 german person X believes
A: Planets have 'best' people
B: Some Germans are the planet's 'best' people
C: X a German is one of the planet's 'best' people
D: X who is one of the 'best' people on the planet should take part in eradicating all people who are not 'best'
E: Some Jews (being not 'best'😉 should be exterminated by X if the opportunity arises

and we can choose any damned F we like! For example
F: Earth is not flat

Now suppose this dunderheaded X with a machine gun asks Y "does the earth not flat imply the planet doesn't have 'best' people?"
The lie initiates a chain which falsifies all of A,B,C,D,E (they are simple enough to be deduced as false once the chain starts by X) at the cost of giving X a skewed reality. With the truthful answer, these dangerous beliefs are free to remain and X then goes of to get his head kicked in by a crowd of angry Jews who don't like people who would try to kill them - whether they're too stupid to know any better or not.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]C'mon. Your argument had gotten away from my point. It's been a little while since I posted that and thought perhaps you'd lost sight of it.
I don't believe it is off point; my reasoning here is that in
[i]"Lying to people in an attempt to make them 'happy' works against their well being. If they don't believe you, it undermines the trust between you they're too stupid to know any better or not.[/b]

[/i]If you can't understand how lying undermines the trust between individuals, then there seems to be little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

Also you seem to keep missing the the explanation of how giving people a skewed view of reality is detrimental:
"If they do believe you, it gives them a skewed view of reality. Most have enough trouble having realistic views of themselves and the universe without it being compounded by people telling them lies."