Recent E1a ruling concerning the word 'Lie'

[Moderator 07]

Hi all, it is no longer permissible to describe another member's post as a lie.

If you make a statement like "Your post is a lie", it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a - No insults.

The reason for this interpretation is because of the obvious inference that exists between 'lie' and 'liar', to whit: only a liar can tell a lie.

To describe a member's post (or part thereof) as a lie is describing that member as a liar.

This precedent is not actually a new development, it has been previously discussed over the years but we have not always adhered to it before now. Some previous discussion of it here -> http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,21153.60.html

[Airyaman]

Seriously...even if the post can be proven to be false? We are getting a bit too PC now, imho.

[Assyriankey]

Seriously...even if the post can be proven to be false? We are getting a bit too PC now, imho.

This is a ruling made on purely logical grounds.  To allow the claim of 'Lie!' would need some sort of exception to our E1a, like we do with the 'humour' clause in the FAQ.

The truth or falseness of a post has nothing to do with this.  A lie is something communicated with the intent to deceive.  A lie is always a falsehood but not vice versa (you can be wrong about something without lying).

[kevin]

good.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

This is actually more a clarification than anything else as we've been more or less enforcing it based off the 2008 post.

[Assyriankey]

That 2008 explanation seemed to allow for the "Your post is a lie."

[nateswift]

Also the clarification is not true.  One may in all honesty repeat a claim that is a lie.  For instance, the Catholic Church for several centuries has been promoting the claim that Jesus said that He would build his church on Peter, "the rock." and using the "big lie" technique to do it.  Saying that the claim often made by such deluded Catholics is a lie is not impugning their character, but that of the church that uses the technique.

[Gnu Ordure]

Please clarify: a few days ago I reported someone for saying this to me:

I also understand that your analogy is a bold faced lie. Or, as we said when I was growing up, a BIG FAT LIE. And a person who lies when speaking of serious matters is a perjurer. Perjury is sometimes consider a felony.

The complaint was upheld, and the poster edited his post so that it reads:

I also understand that your analogy is a bold faced lie. Or, as we said when I was growing up, a BIG FAT LIE. There are words for people who say what is not true in serious matters. Sometimes it is a felony.

In my report, I specifically mentioned both the word 'lie' and the word 'perjurer'. And as you can see, the Mods' decision was that the latter was a violation, but not the former.

In the light of this thread, is that decision still correct?

[Assyriankey]

Hi Gnu, I've reported that post again, that's the best way to review that report.

[Inertialmass]

Well I'll be jiggered.  Here I thought calling someone's post a lie (while misspelling the colloquialism) was the royal road to Moderator status promotion!!!

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttt!!!!


...At a minimum, Jawood's statement would be grossly deceptive and misleading.  At its worst, it is a bold faced lie...

[Assyriankey]

There are countless examples of members saying things like that.  I certainly have done so in the past.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Also the clarification is not true.  One may in all honesty repeat a claim that is a lie.  For instance, the Catholic Church for several centuries has been promoting the claim that Jesus said that He would build his church on Peter, "the rock." and using the "big lie" technique to do it.  Saying that the claim often made by such deluded Catholics is a lie is not impugning their character, but that of the church that uses the technique.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

[Gnu Ordure]

Well I'll be jiggered.  Here I thought calling someone's post a lie (while misspelling the colloquialism) was the royal road to Moderator status promotion!!!

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttt!!!!


...At a minimum, Jawood's statement would be grossly deceptive and misleading.  At its worst, it is a bold faced lie...

My understanding was that:

1. As Assy just said, that 2008 explanation seemed to allow for the "Your post is a lie."
2. Similarly, it was permissible to say "you are lying", on the grounds that a single lie does not make someone a liar.

(By the way Assy, is this issue the reason why MrB started the thread, if you once... ?)

Hi Gnu, I've reported that post again, that's the best way to review that report.

As you wish. Let us know what you decide...

[Captain Luke]

I don't understand why people feel the need to guess at a poster's intent. People get things wrong all the time, without doing it intentionally. Tell people if you think they're wrong, by all means, but when you tell them that they are trying to intentionally deceive, you are calling them a liar. It's not necessary.

[Airyaman]

So, I can say a post is false then?

[Captain Luke]

Yes

[nateswift]

Also the clarification is not true.  One may in all honesty repeat a claim that is a lie.  For instance, the Catholic Church for several centuries has been promoting the claim that Jesus said that He would build his church on Peter, "the rock." and using the "big lie" technique to do it.  Saying that the claim often made by such deluded Catholics is a lie is not impugning their character, but that of the church that uses the technique.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

It's a perfect example and it was on my mind because on another site yet another deluded Catholic is repeating the big lie.

[meAgain]

Also the clarification is not true.  One may in all honesty repeat a claim that is a lie.  For instance, the Catholic Church for several centuries has been promoting the claim that Jesus said that He would build his church on Peter, "the rock." and using the "big lie" technique to do it.  Saying that the claim often made by such deluded Catholics is a lie is not impugning their character, but that of the church that uses the technique.

But saying that making that claim is a lie is a lie.  Jesus did say He will build His church on Peter.  But I think you have shown a perfect example of why this rule might be necessary.  Anyone can claim something is a lie, even if saying it is a lie is what is the lie. 

BTW, I?m not the one who smited you for your comments.  I am genuinely interested in all of your posts, even the ones I disagree with.  And I especially love it when you talk about anything Catholic ? shows you care  .  So +1 to counter whoever smited you. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I smited him as I always smite his bilious emissions. That is an absolute certainty at all times. I will not put up with someone who deliberately sows dissension and ill-will out of one side of his mouth while prattling on about living in love--the only thing Christ requires out the other. 

[Shawna]

I smited him as I always smite his bilious emissions. That is an absolute certainty at all times. I will not put up with someone who deliberately sows dissension and ill-will.

You certainly can't be allowed to have a monopoly on that....

[Kiahanie]

Most definitions of "lie" involve the intention to deceive, knowingly telling an untruth. Examples:
Verb:

to say or write something that is not true in order to deceive someone. --http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/lie_2

Noun:

something you say that you know is not true ----http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/lie_2

These definitions require knowledge of intent to deceive. It is possible to unknowingly speak an untruth, having no intent to deceive, with the intent to convey what one may consider important and valid information (howevever mistaken it may be).

Often in person-to-person contact there are "tells" that reveal a lie, but keyboards are not very expressive, and mind-reading over the internet is notoriously unreliable. The most honest thing we can say about a statement we believe to be untrue is "That is not true." To pretend access to the mind of another is high pretension indeed. The clarification is a welcome reminder of our limits as human beings, and of the nominal respect we owe each other as members of a community.

[Inertialmass]

...My understanding was that:

1. As Assy just said, that 2008 explanation seemed to allow for the "Your post is a lie."
2. Similarly, it was permissible to say "you are lying", on the grounds that a single lie does not make someone a liar...

I don't really see any wiggle room in the older ruling.

You are lying = Your post is a lie.

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,21153.0.html

Hi all, during the last month or so there have been several instances where one member says that another member is lying.

After some debate amongst the moderators and staff of this forum we have decided that the statement "You are lying." (and similar derivatives) is 100% equivalent with calling that member a liar and this means that saying that a member is lying breaks our rule #6 - No insults.

Rephrased:  do not describe another member as lying or you will be moderated for breaking our rule #6.

[Gnu Ordure]

^^^

To be honest I don't really care what the Rule is, I just want it to be clear.

[nateswift]

I have no objections to restating the conditions since there are other ways to say that a statement within a post is a lie, but I think it should be clear that such a statement is not necessarily a reflection of dishonesty, but of ignorance on the part of the poster.

[kevin]

folks, this is real easy.

a lie is a false statement knowingly presented as truth.

a false statement of any other kind is just false, but not a lie.

[nateswift]

folks, this is real easy.

a lie is a false statement knowingly presented as truth.

a false statement of any other kind is just false, but not a lie.

True enough, but a person may unknowingly parrot what someone else deliberately lied about and the statement itself is a lie.

[Airyaman]

So if we give evidence that shows something is false, and the other person still attests to the truthfulness of that thing, what is it then?

[Kiahanie]

An argument. Or debate. Or discussion. Depends.

[Airyaman]

So if I, channeling my inner QM, claim that the holocaust did not happen and I sincerely believe that, then it is not a lie, just false?

[nateswift]

It may or may not be depending on whether you still believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary, something we see quite often.