Russian orthodox pope wears $30,000 watch:

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you ever had or do you now have Alzheimer's disease? 😏

No. Why do you ask?

Edit: Are you saying 'Only someone with Alzheimer's disease, such as myself, would understand how it affects one's memory'?

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[b]No it isn't. If you are uncertain or in doubt or if, at least, you were aware of the possibility that your memory was inaccurate, you would naturally say "I don't recall". If, however, there were a complete distortion of memory (a total failure to recall) you would naturally say "No, this isn't true". You would be wrong but that only p imaginary scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach.[/b]

Let me understand, because we are aware of the possibility of our memory being wrong, we should never reply with categorical denial but always with 'I don't recall'? If someone asked me if I had ever had soft drink and I denied it (because in fact I strongly hate these drinks and always have), I have lied if a family relative contradicts me by saying that I in fact had a sip when I was four years old?

I think if I followed your principle, people would view me as quite eccentric. I would never be able to categorically affirm or deny any question concerning the past because of the possibility of error. I would always have to reply 'I don't recall' or 'My memory could be wrong'. Not only would that be bizarre and an incredible drag on a conversation, it would also be totally redundant. Everyone understands that memory can be wrong and they do not expect a verbal confirmation of this after every question.

Therefore they should "naturally say 'I don't recall'". A "total failure to recall" is not grounds for negating the proposition; that's deception.

No; it isn't. If he genuinely does not recall wearing a watch, in his mind, he is telling the truth. He lacks the intent to deceive. People may be deceived by his words but he is guilty of lying.

In contrast, if he genuinely did not recall wearing a watch, if in fact his memory denied ever wearing a watch, it would be lie to say 'I don't recall' because that would give the impression that sometimes he may a wear, which clearly does not accord with his memory. It would be true but, in his mind, he would have the intent to deceive by giving a false impression.

Please provide an imaginary scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach.

Personally I do not think the current circumstances as far as we know are reproachable.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Like I said:
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.

Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.

Your lack of integrity is remarkable.

Hopefully you'll eventually grow up and stop playing word games in order to be able to try to claim you are "technically ...[text shortened]... rstand this given your history of exhibiting juvenile attitudes and patterns of thought.

No. This isn't a word game. I did not say that the Russian Orthodox Church has a policy of doctoring images. What I said was quite sensible: other churches practice image doctoring and so the Russian Orthodox Church may too. I am sorry if you do not like modal verbs but the general population finds them very useful.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. This isn't a word game. I did not say that the Russian Orthodox Church has a policy of doctoring images. What I said was quite sensible: other churches practice image doctoring and so the Russian Orthodox Church may too. I am sorry if you do not like modal verbs but the general population finds them very useful.

Like I said:
"Hopefully you'll eventually grow up and stop playing word games in order to be able to try to claim you are 'technically correct'. It's what young teens do. Fortunately most grow out of it in short order. I don't really expect you to understand this given your history of exhibiting juvenile attitudes and patterns of thought."

lol. You're consistent if nothing else. Your entire position on this issue is juvenile. Eventually everyone will give up on trying to explain it to you, because your patterns of thought are so childish.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I said:
"Hopefully you'll eventually grow up and stop playing word games in order to be able to try to claim you are 'technically correct'. It's what young teens do. Fortunately most grow out of it in short order. [b]I don't really expect you to understand this given your history of exhibiting juvenile attitudes and patterns of thought."

lol. ...[text shortened]... ive up on trying to explain it to you, because your patterns of thought are so childish.[/b]

Ok. Thank you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok. Thank you.

You're welcome. Hopefully you'll come to the realization sooner than later that you're much more impressed with your "cleverness" than those who see through it. Good luck to you.

Originally posted by Conrau K
He lacks the intent to deceive. People may be deceived by his words but he is guilty of lying.

I mean to say that he is not guilty of lying.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Let me understand, because we are aware of the possibility of our memory being wrong, we should never reply with categorical denial but always with 'I don't recall'? If someone asked me if I had ever had soft drink and I denied it (because in fact I strongly hate these drinks and always have), I have lied if a family relative contradicts me by saying that I ...[text shortened]... I do not think the current circumstances as far as we know are reproachable.

Let me understand, because we are aware of the possibility of our memory being wrong, we should never reply with categorical denial but always with 'I don't recall'? If someone asked me if I had ever had soft drink and I denied it (because in fact I strongly hate these drinks and always have), I have lied if a family relative contradicts me by saying that I in fact had a sip when I was four years old?
Well, clearly you would've had to have had some experience of soft drinks to conclude that you "strongly hate" them, wouldn't you? So, yes, I would conclude that you were lying if you said that you'd never had a soft drink.

I think if I followed your principle, people would view me as quite eccentric. I would never be able to categorically affirm or deny any question concerning the past because of the possibility of error. I would always have to reply 'I don't recall' or 'My memory could be wrong'. Not only would that be bizarre and an incredible drag on a conversation, it would also be totally redundant. Everyone understands that memory can be wrong and they do not expect a verbal confirmation of this after every question.
If you're rational you should be able to give (good) reasons for your assertion. If someone came to me and said that they had seen me at the Hagia Sophia last week and I was wearing a Breguet watch I would be able to categorically deny this. Some of the reasons I might offer may include 'I don't own a Breguet watch', 'I've never been to Istanbul', 'I was in Durban last week' etc. However, if someone said they'd seen me at the racecourse last week with my Scottish Terrier I would have to hesitate considering I do have a Scottish Terrier and I am in the habit of taking him for a walk at the racecourse, even though I don't recall being there last week. Patriarch Kirill never qualified his denial with the fact that he does own a Breguet watch, he had a strong motivation to conceal the truth, and he overextended his claim by accusing his detractors of the very thing that the church did. So I conclude that he was lying. Your standard for proof of deception is to crawl inside the mind of Patriarch Kirill (what a horrible place!) and see if there was any intention to deceive. That's impossible and unreasonable.

No; it isn't. If he genuinely does not recall wearing a watch, in his mind, he is telling the truth. He lacks the intent to deceive. People may be deceived by his words but he is [not] guilty of lying.
Have you ever believed that somebody was lying? Or do people just make "errors"?

Personally I do not think the current circumstances as far as we know are reproachable.
You said "the nature and circumstances of the gift are unclear and could be morally exculpating" so, minimally, you have to be able to imagine a scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach. Please provide it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Let me understand, because we are aware of the possibility of our memory being wrong, we should never reply with categorical denial but always with 'I don't recall'? If someone asked me if I had ever had soft drink and I denied it (because in fact I strongly hate these drinks and always have), I have lied if a family relative contradicts me by saying that I ...[text shortened]... I do not think the current circumstances as far as we know are reproachable.

People also answer "I don't recall" in a court of law while under oath to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sometimes they do recall, but
do not want to answer the question.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[b]Let me understand, because we are aware of the possibility of our memory being wrong, we should never reply with categorical denial but always with 'I don't recall'? If someone asked me if I had ever had soft drink and I denied it (because in fact I strongly hate these drinks and always have), I have lied if a family relative contradicts me by sayin ...[text shortened]... io in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach. Please provide it.

Don't forget that you have Alzheimer's disease and may not remember.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[b]Let me understand, because we are aware of the possibility of our memory being wrong, we should never reply with categorical denial but always with 'I don't recall'? If someone asked me if I had ever had soft drink and I denied it (because in fact I strongly hate these drinks and always have), I have lied if a family relative contradicts me by sayin io in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach. Please provide it.[/b]

So, yes, I would conclude that you were lying if you said that you'd never had a soft drink.

It's really quite beside the point whether you personally think the statement is wrong based on other reasons. The point is that it is possible to remember something quite confidently, emphatically deny anything to the contrary, and be wrong. Since there is not intent to deceive, it does not constitute a lie. No one holds you accountable to the vagaries of human memory.

The fact is, if it means anything, that I never have had soft drink. I dislike it not because of personal experience but because I have always been aware that it is not good for the health and I vividly recall not liking the smell of it. For those reasons I would confidently say that I have never drunk it -- or do you think I should only say 'I do not recall drinking' no matter how confident I am?

If you're rational you should be able to give (good) reasons for your assertion.

Sure, he may not have known that the watch was a Brigit; he may not be in the habit of wearing a watch anyway; the time of wearing the watch may have been some time ago; he may not even recall the occasion of wearing the watch. Apart from asserting senile dementia, there are many plausible grounds why one would forget something yet confidently assert the opposite.

Your standard for proof of deception is to crawl inside the mind of Patriarch Kirill (what a horrible place!) and see if there was any intention to deceive. That's impossible and unreasonable.

Why should you say that Patriarch Kirill's mind is a horrible place? Anyway, it is quite reasonable to ask you to consider his motives and speculate on his intentions if you are to claim he is lying. Lying entails not just speaking falsely but speaking with the knowledge that it is false and having the intention to deceive. To establish that lying has occurred obviously requires a knowledge of the circumstances and, to an extent, there has to be some level of empathy for the person involved, some insight into their intentions.

You said "the nature and circumstances of the gift are unclear and could be morally exculpating" so, minimally, you have to be able to imagine a scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach. Please provide it.

I don't see the need to since we all understand circumstances where it is incumbent on us to accept a gift, even if we do not want it or it is an inconvenience to us. Generally this is going to occur when the giver is someone of higher power; when the gift is of considerable worth or the giver has gone to considerable effort; when there is closeness and intimacy between the giver and receiver. So I imagine in most cultures it would be considered bad form to refuse a gift from someone socially superior who has a close working relationship with the receiver and has gone to considerable effort to select and acquire the gift.

If this were a gift, for example, of the Russian President whom the Patriarch would have met several times in a personal capacity, it would be much more difficult to refuse. Since also the Patriarch needs to cultivate a good relationship with Russian political leaders in order to maintain its survival even in a post-Soviet society, that is another strong reason to accept the gift rather than rudely refuse it and risk offending a powerful government. The same reasons would also apply to retaining the gift rather than selling it. To be honest, I can't see why anyone should be in such uproar until the circumstances are known.

Originally posted by RJHinds
People also answer "I don't recall" in a court of law while under oath to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sometimes they do recall, but
do not want to answer the question.

Yet memory is unreliable and there are many times when people in court present false memories as truth. Witnesses can misidentify and misrecognise. Perjury is an unlikely outcome in these cases. Even if a person were to lie, it would be immensely difficult to demonstrate the intention to deceive, aside from showing motive to lie.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yet memory is unreliable and there are many times when people in court present false memories as truth. Witnesses can misidentify and misrecognise. Perjury is an unlikely outcome in these cases. Even if a person were to lie, it would be immensely difficult to demonstrate the intention to deceive, aside from showing motive to lie.

However, the courts must rely on the memories and the truthfulness of the
witnesses as a major portion of evidence to make decisions to obtain justice.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So, yes, I would conclude that you were lying if you said that you'd never had a soft drink.

It's really quite beside the point whether you personally think the statement is wrong based on other reasons. The point is that it is possible to remember something quite confidently, emphatically deny anything to the contrary, and be wrong. Since there ...[text shortened]... t, I can't see why anyone should be in such uproar until the circumstances are known.[/b]

Let's just get back on the same page. When I said Patriarch Kirill should say 'I don't recall' I had in mind that he knew he owned a Breguet watch. I've repeatedly said that 'I don't own a (Breguet) watch' would be a good reason for denying wearing one. So let's look at your claim (the only way your argument makes sense) that Patriarch Kirill could deny owning a Breguet watch. What degree of confidence could he do this? Is it the same degree with which you could deny owning a Breguet watch? You say that he was given the watch by a very powerful political figure and was compelled to accept the gift, or someone with whom he had an "intima[te]" relationship, then you say that he forgot about it? Even if he did accept this lavish gift, he need not wear it. The article states that he has worn the watch before (the first time in in 2009). Besides, as I've said before, he either declared the gift to the church accountants or he didn't. In both cases he comes off badly.

Your argument rests on ridiculous supposition heaped on ridiculous supposition. First, he had to accept the watch because of political factors (this doesn't mean he had to wear it); second, he forgot that he owned the watch (very conveniently); third, he didn't know the value of the watch (he must have known it was worth a substantial amount if it was given to him by a politician); fourth, you demand an unreasonable proof of deception (if universally adopted we could never conclude anyone was lying). I don't see any reason to accept any of your speculative claims.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Let's just get back on the same page. When I said Patriarch Kirill should say 'I don't recall' I had in mind that he knew he owned a Breguet watch. I've repeatedly said that 'I don't own a (Breguet) watch' would be a good reason for denying wearing one. So let's look at your claim (the only way your argument makes sense) that Patriarch Kirill could den one was lying). I don't see any reason to accept any of your speculative claims.

The report also said he had to look up in his records to see if he had been
given such a watch. Perhaps he had thought he was waering another watch.
You are jumping to conclusions without satisfactory proof. I certainly would
not think you would make a good and fair jurist.