Describing another member as lying

[Lillium]

It's getting a bit to watered down and nice in here......

Catwixen eats poo.? ?? ? ? (You can't say i'm lying, cat! Now do me!)

The mendacity of your post quite appalls me.? And indeed, I do say that I am questioning the veracity of this statement.

Bwa ha ha! Using big words to say that someone may or may not be lying is quite fun.?

Oh wait.... am I allowed to say that?

[hideousmonster]

I think insults should all be allowed.

Try this forum.

I would, but that forum didn't send me a personal invitation.  Had this one not, I don't know what I would be doing with my time online.

[Vynn]

I like the "no insults" rule, but it produces rules like this which enter into a gray area.

Premise A: Some individuals lie on this forum. (This can be shown.)
Premise B: Some of the individuals that lie on this forum, will take another look at what they've said, if it's called a lie, versus something else.

Conclusion: To say that you can't call out a chronic lier for lying is to allow an enabling of this behavior.


I'm insulted when people use the word "indeed" please adjust the rules accordingly. 

[Vynn]

I would, but that forum didn't send me a personal invitation.  Had this one not, I don't know what I would be doing with my time online.

Manatee pron?

[Lillium]

I'm insulted when people use the word "indeed" please adjust the rules accordingly. 

Indeed.

[sky]

I like the "no insults" rule, but it produces rules like this which enter into a gray area.
Conclusion: To say that you can't call out a chronic lier for lying is to allow an enabling of this behavior.
 

And the gray area would be whether we should allow others to lie to us while laying down? Does that make them a chronic lier or liar" which is worse?

Indeed I don't want the liar laying down on the job.

[Assyriankey]

Vynn, how can you tell when a member is lying to you?

[JustMyron]

I have never read a post on this forum where I was confident that someone was deliberately lying to gain an advantage in a debate, rather than just demonstrating a lack of basic reading skills that makes my head hurt to think about it. I generally see a correlation between apparent "lies" and people with a strong viewpoint which predisposes them to see what they want to see rather than what is there. So person B might think person A doesn't mind letting rapists go, because A is an atheist, and therefore a moral relativist who only cares about himself. So person B reads "I do not think rapists should be locked up" when what was said was "I do think rapists should be locked up". And then when he states that person A's position as what he thinks it is, rather than what it actually is, it looks like a lie, when it's just narrowmindedness and lack of careful reading.

For this reason, I think this:

I do think rapists should be locked up

See this ^^^? Read that again, and tell me I'm pro-rapist. If you cannot read, or are unwilling to do so, then there is not a lot of point to us continuing this conversation. If you are interested in continuing, I trust in future you will not assume blatently offensive things about me that contradict what I said.

would be more effective than calling someone a liar anyway. Personally, I'd be calmer in tone than that, but that's just me. If you're worked up and want to make the person you're talking to feel like crap, it can be done more effectively by treating it as a mistake and an example of stupidity/illiteracy than by saying "that is a lie"/"you are a liar".

[hideousmonster]

I would, but that forum didn't send me a personal invitation.  Had this one not, I don't know what I would be doing with my time online.

Manatee pron?

A natural conclusion.

[hideousmonster]

I do think rapists should be locked up

See this ^^^? Read that again, and tell me I'm pro-rapist. If you cannot read, or are unwilling to do so, then there is not a lot of point to us continuing this conversation. If you are interested in continuing, I trust in future you will not assume blatently offensive things about me that contradict what I said.

What if I think you mean rapists should be locked up and raped, because rape turns you on?

You didn't technically say that you're anti-rapist.

[hideousmonster]

I like the "no insults" rule, but it produces rules like this which enter into a gray area.

Premise A: Some individuals lie on this forum. (This can be shown.)
Premise B: Some of the individuals that lie on this forum, will take another look at what they've said, if it's called a lie, versus something else.

Conclusion: To say that you can't call out a chronic lier for lying is to allow an enabling of this behavior.


I'm insulted when people use the word "indeed" please adjust the rules accordingly. 

Premise A: A lie requires a delibrate attempt to mislead. You can not show a member's intent, and therefore you can not show that a member is lying.
Premise B: This premise is based on a rather archaic belief that negative reinforcement works better than positive reinforcement. Some people use the same logic to justify child abuse, which only turns their children against them even more.

[JustMyron]

What if I think you mean rapists should be locked up and raped, because rape turns you on?

You didn't technically say that you're anti-rapist.

Then I would say you're jumping to rather unlikely conclusions, and clarify that I am in fact anti-rapist. But if what I said didn't contradict what you said I said, then how would it even be possible for me to call you a liar? And if there was a genuine misunderstanding and I took that sort of a negative tone with you, implying you couldn't read and whatnot, then I'd have to apologize for that, even if it irked me to apologize to someone who thought I was pro-rapist. That's why I would take a calmer tone.

[Vynn]

Vynn, how can you tell when a member is lying to you?

It's not always cut and dried, but sometimes it is. For instance, if i went to another thread, and posted that i knew nothing of this "no lying rule" that'd not only be asinine, but a lie. I think if i did this i would deserve being called out on this lie. Note that i'm not saying that i should be punished, but that somebody should have the right to call me a liar for lying. I want to be held accountable and i want others held accountable. If i post some lying bulls**t, i would hope that somebody here who cares about me would do me the honor of calling me out on it.

[Vynn]

Premise A: A lie requires a delibrate attempt to mislead. You can not show a member's intent, and therefore you can not show that a member is lying.

It depends on who you talk to. Yes, i've heard this definition before, but i think if a blatant falsehood is stated, it can be labeled a "lie". (For example, if i said that member hideous monster had not posted on this thread, that's a lie, because it's so patently obvious that you have.)

Premise B: This premise is based on a rather archaic belief that negative reinforcement works better than positive reinforcement.

No. It's saying that negative reinforcement sometimes call attention to the issue. It's not saying that it's the only way to do things, or that another method can't be used simultaneously. I'm not claiming that this is THE ONLY method to use, i'm saying it's a handy method to have available. I like having the freedom to use any tool in my toolbox, not just the ones Mrs. Robinson allows me to bring into her house.

Some people use the same logic to justify child abuse, which only turns their children against them even more.

You should have compared it to something Hitler did. I find that gets a much bigger emotional response than the "this-is-used-to-justify-child-abuse" argument. I'm not sure why.

[Assyriankey]

Vynn, how can you tell when a member is lying to you?

It's not always cut and dried, but sometimes it is. For instance, if i went to another thread, and posted that i knew nothing of this "no lying rule" that'd not only be asinine, but a lie. I think if i did this i would deserve being called out on this lie. Note that i'm not saying that i should be punished, but that somebody should have the right to call me a liar for lying. I want to be held accountable and i want others held accountable. If i post some lying bulls**t, i would hope that somebody here who cares about me would do me the honor of calling me out on it.

It's possible that you had forgotten about reading this thread when you post in some other thread that you knew nothing of this "no lying rule."

If you had actually forgotten about this thread when telling the forum that you didn't know about this "no lying rule" would you prefer to be queried about your inconsistency or would you prefer to be called a liar?

[hideousmonster]

What if I think you mean rapists should be locked up and raped, because rape turns you on?

You didn't technically say that you're anti-rapist.

Then I would say you're jumping to rather unlikely conclusions, and clarify that I am in fact anti-rapist. But if what I said didn't contradict what you said I said, then how would it even be possible for me to call you a liar? And if there was a genuine misunderstanding and I took that sort of a negative tone with you, implying you couldn't read and whatnot, then I'd have to apologize for that, even if it irked me to apologize to someone who thought I was pro-rapist. That's why I would take a calmer tone.

Well, I'm just saying that a person can make a statement that only appears to contradict the evidence, and yet still not technically be lying, because he or she interpretted the evidence differently.  So, there's still a possibility that the apparent lie is not a lie.  So, why not give the poster the benefit of the doubt, rather than throwing insults?

[hideousmonster]

It's possible that you had forgotten about reading this thread when you post in some other thread that you knew nothing of this "no lying rule."

If you had actually forgotten about this thread when telling the forum that you didn't know about this "no lying rule" would you prefer to be queried about your inconsistency or would you prefer to be called a liar?

Thank you!  If you had not written this reply, I would have made the same point.

[Assyriankey]

I see no +1...

[hideousmonster]

Premise A: A lie requires a delibrate attempt to mislead. You can not show a member's intent, and therefore you can not show that a member is lying.

It depends on who you talk to. Yes, i've heard this definition before, but i think if a blatant falsehood is stated, it can be labeled a "lie". (For example, if i said that member hideous monster had not posted on this thread, that's a lie, because it's so patently obvious that you have.)

Perhaps you didn't bother reading the names of the posters, or you somehow think that somebody else is logging on under my name, and posing as me. In either case, the statement could theoretically be an honest mistake on your part.  

Premise B: This premise is based on a rather archaic belief that negative reinforcement works better than positive reinforcement.

No. It's saying that negative reinforcement sometimes call attention to the issue. It's not saying that it's the only way to do things, or that another method can't be used simultaneously. I'm not claiming that this is THE ONLY method to use, i'm saying it's a handy method to have available. I like having the freedom to use any tool in my toolbox, not just the ones Mrs. Robinson allows me to bring into her house.

But if the tool in the toolbox is banned, say because it's considered an insult, then you only have that freedom in a publically owned place. But regardless of freedom, it doesn't mean you have to use those tools. If there are methods of calling attention that are not insulting, then why not use those? Does that not make for a more polite, friendly, and considerate exchange of ideas? Discussions that involve harsh words or attacks on character are no more productive than those that involve zero, but they have the disadvantage of deteriorating the mutual respect among those involved.

Some people use the same logic to justify child abuse, which only turns their children against them even more.

You should have compared it to something Hitler did. I find that gets a much bigger emotional response than the "this-is-used-to-justify-child-abuse" argument. I'm not sure why.

No, the Hitler analogy has been done to death. That card's been played so much that people can see through it too easily.

[hideousmonster]

I see no +1...

Oh right... +1...

Sorry, I don't place a lot of value in karma, so it doesn't spring readily to mind when it normally would for others.

[Dragnet]

It's possible that you had forgotten about reading this thread when you post in some other thread that you knew nothing of this "no lying rule."

If you had actually forgotten about this thread when telling the forum that you didn't know about this "no lying rule" would you prefer to be queried about your inconsistency or would you prefer to be called a liar?

I do not recall any rules listed against telling lies.
Maybe I am missing something.

[Vynn]

It's possible that you had forgotten about reading this thread when you post in some other thread that you knew nothing of this "no lying rule."

If you had actually forgotten about this thread when telling the forum that you didn't know about this "no lying rule" would you prefer to be queried about your inconsistency or would you prefer to be called a liar?

Well, suppose you queried me, i insisted that despite my many posts in this thread, i knew nothing of this rule. You then link me to this thread, and point out my many posts in it. What then? I think at that point you should be able to call me a liar.

[Vynn]

No, the Hitler analogy has been done to death. That card's been played so much that people can see through it too easily.

I agree. In fact, i think that comparing someone's logic to that used to justify child abuse should do nicely in the stead of saying that they are lying.

[Vynn]

I do not recall any rules listed against telling lies.
Maybe I am missing something.

Yes. Saying that another member has "lied" is now equivalent with calling them a "liar". Calling someone a liar is now equivalent with an insult. There's a rule against insulting other members.

[Dragnet]

I do not recall any rules listed against telling lies.
Maybe I am missing something.

Yes. Saying that another member has "lied" is now equivalent with calling them a "liar". Calling someone a liar is now equivalent with an insult. There's a rule against insulting other members.

OH I understand that, the comment was to the "no lying rule" . Is there a rule against telling a lie?

[SarRawr]

Yo momma's face is lying!

I agree with cat, someone was dipped in bovine excrement before giving birth to y'all forum goons.

[Vynn]

someone was dipped in bovine excrement before giving birth to y'all forum goons.

You're NOT lying. 

[SarRawr]

I had to google s**t.  I didn't know what it meant. 

[Assyriankey]

It's possible that you had forgotten about reading this thread when you post in some other thread that you knew nothing of this "no lying rule."

If you had actually forgotten about this thread when telling the forum that you didn't know about this "no lying rule" would you prefer to be queried about your inconsistency or would you prefer to be called a liar?

Well, suppose you queried me, i insisted that despite my many posts in this thread, i knew nothing of this rule. You then link me to this thread, and point out my many posts in it. What then? I think at that point you should be able to call me a liar.

If you were intentionally trying to deceive me with some falsehood then yes - you were lying and could quite properly be called a liar.

But our rule has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the charge of lying.  I called a member of this forum a racist and received a rule #6 break as a result - same deal.

If we want to be allowed to call someone a liar then we need to change rule #6.  Maybe we should have a "No lying." rule? :)

1) Saying that another member has "lied" is now equivalent with calling them a "liar". 2) Calling someone a liar is now equivalent with an insult. 3) There's a rule against insulting other members.

1) Saying that another member is lying has always been equivalent with calling that member a liar.  I started this thread to let our members know that we will now be prosecuting certain instances that we were previously ignoring.

2) Calling someone a liar has always been against our rules.

One out of three isn't bad :)

[Vynn]

If you were intentionally trying to deceive me with some falsehood then yes - you were lying and could quite properly be called a liar.

But our rule has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of the charge of lying.  I called a member of this forum a racist and received a rule #6 break as a result - same deal.

If we want to be allowed to call someone a liar then we need to change rule #6.  Maybe we should have a "No lying." rule? :)

This is only because you are defining "that's a lie", with "you're a liar", and defining "you're a liar" as an insult. Yes, anything the mods decide is an insult is against rule #6. I've already made this point.

1) Saying that another member is lying has always been equivalent with calling that member a liar. 

I disagree. Someone can commit an act a few times and not be defined by that act. If i accidentally take a pen home from work, i've "stolen" that pen. The fact that i've stolen a pen doesn't mean that generally, i'm a thief. I think the same applies for lying.

2) Calling someone a liar has always been against our rules.

Not explicitly it hasn't. It's only now against the rules because it's been deemed an insult. By that logic, any word at all could be deemed an insult at any time by the mods. Hell, why advertise it at all if it's so malleable a rule? <-- This sentence could be judged by the mods as insulting to you, and the result is the same.

One out of three isn't bad :)

I have no idea. I don't know what the three or one is.