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.

[Kiahanie]

If you believe it, you are not lying and your statement is not a lie. If I should make the same statement, I would be lying, and my statement would be a lie. But as far as E1a is concerned we both could only be accused (and rightly so) of being wrong.

[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.

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

if so, that statement is NOT a lie, nor is the parrot a liar. if presented in good faith without intent to deceive, the statement is merely false.

again, this is easy. a lie requires knowledge that the statement is false and a wilful intent to present it otherwise.

[kevin]

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?

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.

airyaman, if you pass along false information that you believe to be true, then you haven't lied, you have merely been mistaken.

nate, your qualification of "whether you still believe it" or not falls completely under the category of whether or not you have made a false statement with the intent to deceive. if you still believe it, you are not a liar and it is not a lie. if you know or believe it to be false it is a lie and you are a liar.

there is nothing more complicated about a lie than this:

it is a statement known or believed to be false that is presented as true.

by the same person, who is therefore a liar.

[kevin]

interestingly, i just looked up "lie" in an american dictionary, and the first two definitions directly contradict each other. this is fairly unusual.


Main Entry:4lie
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lug*, Old English l*ogan to lie
Date:before 12th century

1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive  b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying

this definition of lie is what i hold to:


1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

hereis the one that nate is advocating:

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

this being a dictionary, these definitions reflect useage in american english, not a logical denotement. since the second definition is logically incompatible with the first, i acknowledge that informal useage includes the second expression, but for the sake of precision i will continue to maintain that only the first expression is genuinely accurate.

[Assyriankey]

So, I can say a post is false then?

Yes, because there is no inference in the statement that the post owner is false.

[Airyaman]

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.

So is nate correct here in calling this a "lie"?

[Assyriankey]

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.

So is nate correct here in calling this a "lie"?

I personally think that Nate would likely be dinged for E1a if he replied in that manner but I'm just one of the moderators (I don't decide these things in isolation) and the only real test would be for Nate to try saying it.

[nateswift]

Kevin, they are not logically incompatible, they are just approaching the subject fromn different directions.  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

AK, according to the new definition here it would be a ding.  I'm ok with that, but the premise on which the definition is made is erroneous, though appropriate for keeping things at a lower level of heat. 

[Assyriankey]

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.

Yes re #1, No re #2 - that 2008 explanation thread is explicit on this point - you cannot say that someone is lying (at least, the OP was, not sure about some of the last few pages, JM, etc).

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

Not related, to the best of my knowledge.

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...

Will do.

[Assyriankey]

Kevin, they are not logically incompatible, they are just approaching the subject fromn different directions.  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

Sure, but how would you go about informing the poster that his post contains a lie?  If you attribute the lie to the post then it's very likely that you would be dinged.  If you take care and don't make that inference then all's good.

AK, according to the new definition here it would be a ding.  I'm ok with that, but the premise on which the definition is made is erroneous, though appropriate for keeping things at a lower level of heat.

Like all our rules, it's a compromise.

[nateswift]

  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

Sure, but how would you go about informing the poster that his post contains a lie?  If you attribute the lie to the post then it's very likely that you would be dinged.  If you take care and don't make that inference then all's good.

Using the term under discussion one would say "That statement is a lie" and then continue with an explanation of the source the original lie.  Avoiding "lie" is a better idea.

[FGOH]

  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

Sure, but how would you go about informing the poster that his post contains a lie?  If you attribute the lie to the post then it's very likely that you would be dinged.  If you take care and don't make that inference then all's good.

Using the term under discussion one would say "That statement is a lie" and then continue with an explanation of the source the original lie.  Avoiding "lie" is a better idea.

It is very easy to say that a statement is untrue without calling it a lie and thus impugning the character of the person who made the untrue statement.

[kevin]

Kevin, they are not logically incompatible, they are just approaching the subject fromn different directions.  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

these two definitions are precisely incompatible, nate.

using one definition, a statement that i might make is not a lie.

using the other definition, that same statement is a lie.

therefore you are arguing that the same statement can simultaneously be a lie and not be a lie. this is impossible, and therefore the definitions cannot simultaneously be applied. in other words, they are logically incompatible.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I can't get too hung up on definitions. We all know what a lie is. Well, most of us do. I don't even think it is an issue that we have another foolish rule. My issue is that no one who wasn't here 5 years ago would suspect that this is an exception to the no insults rule. It is really cutting matters too finely to say that "your post is dumb" is ok but "your post is a lie" is not given the logic of the "no insults" rule. In the one case I am dumb; in the other I am a liar. Both are insulting. Why is one worse than the other?

No, in my opinion the problem is that if you were not here 5 years ago, you don't know that Myron (apparently. Who can wade through those walls of text) finally decreed in an old  thread that "your post is a lie" was not acceptable; no way, no how. OK. So where is that codified for the good of future members? Why must members intuit things that were decided years ago but never written into the rules? The endless rules? The rules are all over the place, literally and figuratively! How many threads would you have to know to look for, find and read in order to be up-to-date on everything?

When I got dinged for using "your post is a lie" I was quite surprised and asked how it differed from the insult rule as written. The moderately kindly referred me to that 5 year old thread which has never been made part of the written rules. Even so, we can be punished for transgressing it. I wasn't here 5 years ago. Sucks to be me, I guess. I need to develop ESP. In the meantime I have been amusing myself finding instances of "your post is a lie" all over the forum. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored whether or not anyone will bother to report it.

Or maybe virtually no one else knew that it violates the rulez, either. The endless rulez.

[kevin]

i tend to be anal retentive regarding definitions. it's why i ended up as a systematist, i suppose.

but i take truthtelling seriously to a degree considered absurd by other people, and i think clarifying whether or not it is acceptable is worthwhile. i let all sorts of personal comments go by in conversation, but if somebody calls me a liar, or states that something i wrote is a lie, i report it. to me, a lie is a violation of the fundamental quaker testimony of integrity, so i take the accusation seriously as impugning my faithfulness to something i consider integral to my service to god.

[Assyriankey]

It is really cutting matters too finely to say that "your post is dumb" is ok but "your post is a lie" is not given the logic of the "no insults" rule. In the one case I am dumb; in the other I am a liar. Both are insulting. Why is one worse than the other?

Yes, it's a fine line.  I wonder what other "your post is ..." sentences will translate into an E1a breach.  The moderators did a quick run through of possibilities before starting this thread and they didn't come up with any but I'm sure they exist.

Saying your post is dumb is not equivalent to saying you are dumb because people can say dumb things without being dumb.

Saying your post is a lie is 100% equivalent to saying you are a liar because only a liar can tell a lie, if you get behind the idea that a lie is never unintentional.

[nateswift]

Kevin, they are not logically incompatible, they are just approaching the subject fromn different directions.  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

these two definitions are precisely incompatible, nate.

using one definition, a statement that i might make is not a lie.

using the other definition, that same statement is a lie.

therefore you are arguing that the same statement can simultaneously be a lie and not be a lie. this is impossible, and therefore the definitions cannot simultaneously be applied. in other words, they are logically incompatible.

No, the definition again:a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive  b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
In the first the speaker knows it is a lie, in the second he does not necessarily.

[Assyriankey]

Nate, the re-telling of a lie is never an act of lying (i.e it is not a lie) if the speaker believes it to be true.

a : the assertion of something known or believed to be untrue. <- sounds fair.

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker <- WTF?

Look closely at b.  You are claiming that an inaccurate statement believed to be true by the speaker is a lie (solely because it is inaccurate).

So sincere & genuine errors are lies??? That's just crazy.  What a stupid definition.

Fortunately for all of us here, our moderators are extremely intelligent people and they won't be adopting your definition B anytime soon.

[Airyaman]

<snip>
Saying your post is a lie is 100% equivalent to saying you are a liar because only a liar can tell a lie, if you get behind the idea that a lie is never unintentional.

What person on earth has never told a lie?

[Assyriankey]

<snip>
Saying your post is a lie is 100% equivalent to saying you are a liar because only a liar can tell a lie, if you get behind the idea that a lie is never unintentional.

What person on earth has never told a lie?

A mute, all of them.

[Tero]

So we can inform the poster their information is a fabrication? Just checking.

[Assyriankey]

So we can inform the poster their information is a fabrication? Just checking.

Certainly, yes.

Well, there is no guarantee in law but I personally think that would most likely maybe sort of be acceptable.

[Airyaman]

<snip>
Saying your post is a lie is 100% equivalent to saying you are a liar because only a liar can tell a lie, if you get behind the idea that a lie is never unintentional.

What person on earth has never told a lie?

A mute, all of them.

A mute can't type or write?

So if everyone has lied, then they are already liars. Not sure then what the insult is to say someone is lying, since they are already liars...

[Assyriankey]

Aaah, gotcha.

When a member describes a post as a lie, inferring that the post's author is a liar, the member is effectively describing the author using a derogatory term.

It may help your understanding here to remember that even describing a self-confessed racist as a racist is a breach of E1a.

[Airyaman]

But can you say a post is racist and not be calling the poster a racist?

[Assyriankey]

But can you say a post is racist and not be calling the poster a racist?

I think so but, as before, this is just my opinion.  I guess it won't be very long before we find out :D

[FGOH]

Even so, we can be punished for transgressing it.

If being given 24 hours to edit a post is a punishment, then, yes.

[kevin]

But can you say a post is racist and not be calling the poster a racist?

uh oh.

what about bigoted posts? if i say your post is bigoted am i calling you a bigot?

fascist?

evil?

[nateswift]

Nate, the re-telling of a lie is never an act of lying (i.e it is not a lie) if the speaker believes it to be true.

a : the assertion of something known or believed to be untrue. <- sounds fair.

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker <- WTF?


Fortunately for all of us here, our moderators are extremely intelligent people and they won't be adopting your definition B anytime soon.

Clearly you don't understand be as evedent by your "WTF" and the statement in the first sentence "(i.e it is not a lie). "  We are talking about two different things, a liar and a lie.  If a statememt is made with intent to deceive it is a lie.  Innocently repeating that lie does not change that fact, it only means that the parrot is not the liar.

Fortunately, the moderators whpo understand this may clarify that even though calling a statement IN a post (as opposed to the whole post) a lie is not necessarily calling the poster a liar, it is appropriate to refrain from using the word due to its inflamatory nature and the liklihood that the poster will misunderstand just as the less intelligent moderators do.

[Airyaman]

"Your post is false."

"Reported for calling me a false witness!"

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Even so, we can be punished for transgressing it.

If being given 24 hours to edit a post is a punishment, then, yes.

Exactly what good is being given 24 hours to edit a post, if it is for breaking a rule that no one knows is a rule? Really, you people grow weirder and weirder and less and less rational every day.

[Shawna]

^  Does that mean you'll be leaving soon?  Because this is all really just a conspiracy to play with your head until you snap.

----
The moderators do a reasonable job of trying to keep up with the members, who are constantly moving the goalposts... whenever one of us thinks of a new and novel way to insult someone, the mods are forced to decide whether that insulting behavior slides or whether it needs to be addressed.

I fail to see any particular difficulty.... if the mods decide that a post needs editing, they tell you to edit it, and what words are a problem.  Then they give you 24 hours to do it with no penalty.  Even if you don't edit it, and eventually go to the Corner, the Corner is not exactly cruel and unusual punishment.  Some of the most interesting threads are Corner threads.

IGI chose a difficult principle to maintain when the founders decided that they didn't want its members to egregiously insult each other, while still trying to allow for freedom of expression.  The can of worms was opened on Day One; the mods have been running after those slippery little critters ever since.  Carry on, mods.

[kevin]

that ^^^post is bigoted.

[Kiahanie]

Kevin, they are not logically incompatible, they are just approaching the subject fromn different directions.  A person who knows he is telling an untruth is lying.  That untruth is then a lie.  Someone who repeats the lie unknowingly is not lying, but the statement is still a lie.

these two definitions are precisely incompatible, nate.

using one definition, a statement that i might make is not a lie.

using the other definition, that same statement is a lie.

therefore you are arguing that the same statement can simultaneously be a lie and not be a lie. this is impossible, and therefore the definitions cannot simultaneously be applied. in other words, they are logically incompatible.

No, the definition again:a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive  b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
In the first the speaker knows it is a lie, in the second he does not necessarily.

The head of this pin is getting very crowded. Are there very many angels still waiting to get on?

[kevin]

i've said everything i have to say, and haven't seen anything that would change what i believe to be true.

[Assyriankey]

Nate, the re-telling of a lie is never an act of lying (i.e it is not a lie) if the speaker believes it to be true.

a : the assertion of something known or believed to be untrue. <- sounds fair.

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker <- WTF?


Fortunately for all of us here, our moderators are extremely intelligent people and they won't be adopting your definition B anytime soon.

Clearly you don't understand be as evedent by your "WTF" and the statement in the first sentence "(i.e it is not a lie). "  We are talking about two different things, a liar and a lie.  If a statememt is made with intent to deceive it is a lie.  Innocently repeating that lie does not change that fact, it only means that the parrot is not the liar.

Fortunately, the moderators whpo understand this may clarify that even though calling a statement IN a post (as opposed to the whole post) a lie is not necessarily calling the poster a liar, it is appropriate to refrain from using the word due to its inflamatory nature and the liklihood that the poster will misunderstand just as the less intelligent moderators do.

So you see nothing wrong with describing as a lie a person's erroneous statement made in good faith?  Obviously we have very different standards of acceptable conduct.  Your definition B is a nonsense.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

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.

Then why was a violation logged for me yesterday. If it is no longer permissible, it was permissible when I used the phrase. If using it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a ... that is future tense.

So obviously the only rational and fair thing to do is to remove the etiquette violation from my account. But I won't hold my breath.

[Assyriankey]

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.

Then why was a violation logged for me yesterday. If it is no longer permissible, it was permissible when I used the phrase. If using it will be found guilty of breaching etiquette E1a ... that is future tense.

Yeah, your infringement and my announcement don't align time-wise very well, my apologies for that.  I also could have worded the OP of this thread a bit better.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Don't align well=oops! I told the truth.

Let's be clear. It wasn't a breach of etiquette when I and most of the forum used the phrase up until last Saturday. Then you decided to make an example of me. I can just hear the wheels turning. Assy: "hey, remember that thread 5 years ago when Myron decreed that you couldn't say "your post is a lie?" "No", replies Luke, "But if you are sure, we can use it against MtO. Let's do it!"

How close is that? Pretty darned close, I suspect. I want the infraction off my record. I have plenty of real ones of my own, I don't need you making up fictional violations.

[Jezzebelle]

you have not been the only one dinged for this in five years. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Were you a moderator when you wrote this, I wonder?

"liar" is desrcibing the poster and not the post... so yes it is.

you may quote the lie and say "that is not true/that is a lie"

It is highly amusing to search for "your post lie" Whole threads of violations turn up, as well as some mighty amusing discussions

[Jezzebelle]

I don't remember.  And I never said I agreed with the ruling, but it is the ruling and you aren't/haven't been the only one dinged for it.  I clearly didn't vote on this report of yours since it was said against me. 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Nobody is saying that you did. I asked if you were a moderator then for the very simple reason that you were giving Jay information that now has been declared wrong.

As they say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Even here.

[Jezzebelle]

I don't remember :/  I just looked in the mod box, and I can't pin point when exactly I quit the first time but it was around then, maybe the month before or after? 

[Maggie the Opinionated]

That thread is just too, too, delicious. Poor Jay got caught in the "you didn't know it was a violation of the rules? BWAHAHAHA! Got us another one, Assy!"

There's nearly 3 years precedent on "liar."

First of all....I am supposed to know that you have '3 years of precedent on this"  How?? 

Guffaws are so healthy. I can feel my lungs expanding and taking in that good oxygen, even as I type!

[nateswift]

So you see nothing wrong with describing as a lie a person's erroneous statement made in good faith?  Obviously we have very different standards of acceptable conduct.  Your definition B is a nonsense.

If you don't think a lie can take on a life of its own you should check the history of my example.

[Assyriankey]

Don't align well=oops! I told the truth.

Let's be clear. It wasn't a breach of etiquette when I and most of the forum used the phrase up until last Saturday. Then you decided to make an example of me. I can just hear the wheels turning. Assy: "hey, remember that thread 5 years ago when Myron decreed that you couldn't say "your post is a lie?" "No", replies Luke, "But if you are sure, we can use it against MtO. Let's do it!"

How close is that? Pretty darned close, I suspect. I want the infraction off my record. I have plenty of real ones of my own, I don't need you making up fictional violations.

The only way you can have the infraction reversed is if you appeal the decision.

[Assyriankey]

So you see nothing wrong with describing as a lie a person's erroneous statement made in good faith?  Obviously we have very different standards of acceptable conduct.  Your definition B is a nonsense.

If you don't think a lie can take on a life of its own you should check the history of my example.

Certainly, but to call someone a liar when all they've done is unwittingly repeat a falsehood is ridiculous.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Don't align well=oops! I told the truth.

Let's be clear. It wasn't a breach of etiquette when I and most of the forum used the phrase up until last Saturday. Then you decided to make an example of me. I can just hear the wheels turning. Assy: "hey, remember that thread 5 years ago when Myron decreed that you couldn't say "your post is a lie?" "No", replies Luke, "But if you are sure, we can use it against MtO. Let's do it!"

How close is that? Pretty darned close, I suspect. I want the infraction off my record. I have plenty of real ones of my own, I don't need you making up fictional violations.

The only way you can have the infraction reversed is if you appeal the decision.

What do you think I am doing?  Oh wait! There are rulez about that, too!

[Assyriankey]

^ ok

[nateswift]

Certainly, but to call someone a liar when all they've done is unwittingly repeat a falsehood is ridiculous.

well, yes, Assy....That's what I have been saying, and to call a statement a lie therefore does NOT necessarily call the one who parrots the lie a liar.  Ok?

[Assyriankey]

Certainly, but to call someone a liar when all they've done is unwittingly repeat a falsehood is ridiculous.

well, yes, Assy....That's what I have been saying, and to call a statement a lie therefore does NOT necessarily call the one who parrots the lie a liar.  Ok?

Nate, yes, I know that is what you've been saying all along, and I also know you're broadly supportive of this new interpretation (not that it's truly a virgin here).  Our exchange is not just about each other.

As you know, we try to avoid judging intent so blanket interpretation is the order of the day.

[kevin]

i, kevin, am a compulsive lier, and i am lying as i write this.

Spoiler

[close]

[Assyriankey]

For the children...

What is it called when someone says something they know is not true?

That sentence is just another way of labelling a member as a liar and it won't be allowed to stand.

This is definitely not something new - e.g. asking if someone is a pedophile has always been a breach of E1a.

[Shawna]

you have not been the only one dinged for this in five years.

I was dinged for saying something about someone else's posts a year or so ago.  I muttered at the moderator who dinged me, and then I cooperated.

The rules are to try to keep discourse within a reasonable range of civil.  Whether I was technically breaking the rules or not, I was certainly not being very nice.  So...   No harm in editing......

[Maggie the Opinionated]

It is called a new low in the IGI war on the language. A ruthless war determined to rob the language of all color, depth and explanatory power. It is the aesthetic equivalent of an obese man wearing shorts, white socks with sandals and insisting that this is appropriate evening attire. Pitiful. Just pitiful.

[Shawna]

Thank you for sharing, Maggie.

You might try making your discourse less unpleasant... that would short-circuit all your problems with the rules.

Just stick to your spite smiting.... no rule against that.... 

[Jezzebelle]

rulez

good lord.  when you find something you think is clever, you really hang on to it and just beat it to death, huh?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

For the children...

What is it called when someone says something they know is not true?

That sentence is just another way of labelling a member as a liar and it won't be allowed to stand.

This is definitely not something new - e.g. asking if someone is a pedophile has always been a breach of E1a.

By the way. Is this new? Announcing that you find something an E1a violation and pronouncing it guilty in public? It is a new one on me, in any case. Have the mods actually voted on this infraction or are you giving them their orders? I am rather hoping that sanity will reign and that you will be ignored. 

[Jezzebelle]

Move along. You are clearly incapable of understanding why I am using it and I am not going to tell you. I write for adults.

ha, well you clearly got my point... you didn't say "butt out" this time 

[Assyriankey]

By the way. Is this new? Announcing that you find something an E1a violation and pronouncing it guilty in public? It is a new one on me, in any case. Have the mods actually voted on this infraction or are you giving them their orders? I am rather hoping that sanity will reign and that you will be ignored.

Yes, the mods had voted before I made that post.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Does this rule still stand as the OP stated?

Seems there have been a number of accusations of posts being lies recently 

[Jay]

Yes Teaspoon.  It is still a violation of E1a to call a member a liar.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Thanks Jay.  If you don't mind, what about these examples, would you consider posts in this nature to also be a violation?

1. "IS THIS ANOTHER LIE?"
2. "LIE"
3. "LIE 1....LIE 2.....LIE 3"
4. "more lies"

I don't want to nitpick but understand the rules.  Cheers for your assistance.

[Jay]

Teaspoon.

It is difficult to discuss rule violations in the hypothetical, as it requires more than 1 mod to make a ruling, and hypotheticals can be problematic.

But.  Generally, if those statements were directed at another member directly, yes, most likely they would be a violation of E1a based on current precedent.

ie, if the staff determines that a member stated another member was lying or told a lie, it would be a violation of E1a.

Sometimes though, it may not be direct enough if it is implied.  Sometimes we also make mistakes.  Best thing to do if this is in regards to a specific staff ruling would be to request an appeal or more info on the specific ruling.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Thanks Jay.

[kevin]

in my opinion, it should also be possible to call out a lie being repreated by another member without asserting that the other member is a liar.

for instance, member A reads a lie in the newspaper:

HEADLINES! ELVIS FOUND ALIVE AS TRANSVESTITE AARDVAARK BREEDER ON GANYMEDE!!

member A impartially posts the headline.

member B says, "that is a lie."

member B has not asserted anything about the veracity of member A, but merely about a statement made by someone else, one which member A has reported. if that someone else is not a member of the forum, then calling him a liar is not an actionable insult, and certainly not an actionable infraction with respect to member A.

however, if member A asserts the lie to be  a statement of truth, and member B says, "member A, when you say that stuff about about elvis, then you are a liar," then i would consider an infraction to have taken place.

but i am not a moderator, and am merely expressing an opinion. and as i recall, there is still disagreement about what constitutes a lie in the first place.

[Jay]

Kevin, I would tend to agree with that personally.

ETA:  As long as it is clear that the 'liar' is not a member of the forum.

[eyeshaveit]

Wouldn't it be  best, just to leave the words, lie - lies - liar - etc. at "home"? Such are not necessary to advance any sort of civil discussion. 

[kevin]

Kevin, I would tend to agree with that personally.

ETA:  As long as it is clear that the 'liar' is not a member of the forum.

surely nobody here would assert that aardvaarks live on ganymede

[Gnu Ordure]

Aardvaarks live on Ganymede.

[Jay]

well there ya go.

[kevin]

liar

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Why not assert "I believe X is UNTRUE because of Y"?

Call me a liar or my post is a lie it pisses me off. 
It makes me wanting to not post here any more.

[kevin]

teaspoon, a lie is a wilful misrepresentation of truth. in other words, it is usually a false statement made with intent to deceive. but not always. lies can be non-verbal, can consist of symbols or actions, or you can dissemble.

but if you're not trying to trick somebody, then all the false statements in the world don't make them a lie or you a liar.

if you quote something somebody else said with intent to deceive, then you have quoted a liar and their statement was a lie. but you are not a liar and your post is not a lie-- you just said something that wasn't true.

see the difference? there's a distinction between making a false statement and making a lie-- for a false statement to be a lie you have had to have known it was false and said it anyway.

more problematically, you can be called a liar if you say something false that you should have known to be true, but willfully failed to examine or present in an honest manner.

a special form of lying is called dissembling, which is to deceive people without making false statements, but by merely avoiding the truth. for example, if you're hiding john in the closet, and the police ask you, do you know where john is, and you say, he's not in the bathroom, then you have avoided the truth and have lied without having made a specific false statement.

[Jay]

Well, it has never been a violation of E1a to call a non member a derogatory word.

So, if the word lie or liar is not directed at a member, it is not an E1a.  Never has been either. 

Again, it needs to be clear that the 'liar' is not a member of the forum though.

[Happy Evolute]

... for example, if you're hiding john in the closet, and the police ask you, do you know where john is, and you say, he's not in the bathroom, then you have avoided the truth and have lied without having made a specific false statement.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So basically you can't call a spade a spade, but you must call it something else.  Correct?

[Jezzebelle]

I don't understand why people must insist on insulting people.  What is so hard about saying "that's not true" instead of calling someone a liar!  FFS

[Gnu Ordure]

So basically you can't call a spade a spade, but you must call it something else.  Correct?

No. The point is that, on forums at least, in order to know for a fact that someone is lying (or being dishonest), you need to be able to read their minds. Or get them to admit it.

So you might think it's a spade, JWB, but you don't know it's a spade, so you're not allowed to call it a spade.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

teaspoon, a lie is a wilful misrepresentation of truth. in other words, it is usually a false statement made with intent to deceive. but not always. lies can be non-verbal, can consist of symbols or actions, or you can dissemble.

but if you're not trying to trick somebody, then all the false statements in the world don't make them a lie or you a liar.

if you quote something somebody else said with intent to deceive, then you have quoted a liar and their statement was a lie. but you are not a liar and your post is not a lie-- you just said something that wasn't true.

see the difference? there's a distinction between making a false statement and making a lie-- for a false statement to be a lie you have had to have known it was false and said it anyway.

more problematically, you can be called a liar if you say something false that you should have known to be true, but willfully failed to examine or present in an honest manner.

a special form of lying is called dissembling, which is to deceive people without making false statements, but by merely avoiding the truth. for example, if you're hiding john in the closet, and the police ask you, do you know where john is, and you say, he's not in the bathroom, then you have avoided the truth and have lied without having made a specific false statement.

I understand what you are saying but on a forum where one liners are common and one of those are "That's another lie", all I read is one member calling another member a liar.  I do not get the to know the reason behind it.  Regardless the same thing should still apply, how do you know that the original source was trying to deceive?

Why not state "Your argument is untrue and provide the reason"?

[kevin]

for the reason that i mentioned.

if someone mskes an argument using a passage from scripture, but  does not menyion the very next verse which contradicts thier  conclusion, then it id jsyiffiwbke to conclude yhat they avoided it in order to kake a deceitfil argument.

the alternwtive id thwt they are damn fools, whicj may also be true  hy itself.

i do not decieve, and i detest the hypocrisy of people who do but become upset when their own is uncovered

[Mr. Blackwell]

Why not assert "I believe X is UNTRUE because of Y"?

Call me a liar or my post is a lie it pisses me off. 
It makes me wanting to not post here any more.

Well, that's obviously not 100% accurate. If you truly felt like not posting here anymore, you would simply stop posting.








*did I do it right?*

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Why not assert "I believe X is UNTRUE because of Y"?

Call me a liar or my post is a lie it pisses me off. 
It makes me wanting to not post here any more.

Well, that's obviously not 100% accurate. If you truly felt like not posting here anymore, you would simply stop posting.








*did I do it right?*

Fortunately I am not being accused of being a liar, other members are.  As advised I would not appreciate it.
I was on another site for a short period but how abusive some posters were to others caused me to leave.  Very little open dialogue stems from an environment like that IMO.

This seems to be the nature of the rules but some are trying to justify their work around.  Surely better options are available?

[eyeshaveit]

for the reason that i mentioned.

if someone mskes an argument using a passage from scripture, but  does not menyion the very next verse which contradicts thier  conclusion, then it id jsyiffiwbke to conclude yhat they avoided it in order to kake a deceitfil argument.

the alternwtive id thwt they are damn fools, whicj may also be true  hy itself.

i do not decieve, and i detest the hypocrisy of people who do but become upset when their own is uncovered

You "do not deceive" and you "detest hypocrisy of people who do". Does that mean, we should praise you, or examine and closely follow your sterling example, or what?

Theists who worship the God of the Bible, have no need to call another "liar", as regarding matters of faith. Just "shake the dust" and move on. On the Day of the LORD, all lies will all be sorted out by a most Holy GOD. 

[Jay]

Why not assert "I believe X is UNTRUE because of Y"?

Call me a liar or my post is a lie it pisses me off. 
It makes me wanting to not post here any more.

Well, that's obviously not 100% accurate. If you truly felt like not posting here anymore, you would simply stop posting.








*did I do it right?*

Fortunately I am not being accused of being a liar, other members are.  As advised I would not appreciate it.
I was on another site for a short period but how abusive some posters were to others caused me to leave.  Very little open dialogue stems from an environment like that IMO.

This seems to be the nature of the rules but some are trying to justify their work around.  Surely better options are available?

Have you reported the posts?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I don't understand why people must insist on insulting people.  What is so hard about saying "that's not true" instead of calling someone a liar!  FFS

I don't know why people insist on spreading lies.  What is so hard about speaking the truth?  Why should a lie not be called a lie?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Sometimes it's best to just let sleeping dogs lie.


Although it is hard to resist the urge to poke it with a stick.

[eyeshaveit]

I don't understand why people must insist on insulting people.  What is so hard about saying "that's not true" instead of calling someone a liar!  FFS

I don't know why people insist on spreading lies.  What is so hard about speaking the truth?  Why should a lie not be called a lie?

I don't understand why people must insist on insulting people.  What is so hard about saying "that's not true" instead of calling someone a liar!  FFS

I don't know why people insist on spreading lies.  What is so hard about speaking the truth?  Why should a lie not be called a lie?

What about the practice here, of deflection and omission, for instance a cult member saying that "x" can't be true, because he was never taught about "x" - the defection hinging on the word, "taught". Of course he was never taught about the embarrassment, known as "x", but he very well has complete knowledge of "x", and how "x" looks bad for his cult.

Anyway, all is not lost, because you ought not "use" the words, lie, liar, lying, etc. Why not just demonstrate your validity, by just accurately parallel posting the truth in response to a lie, and let the facts simply brand the false witness, as a liar? Of course, as previously said, some of this boils down to reading the minds of other posters, but facts are facts.

And certainly, if you are a theist, and your's is that an powerful deity, then stand tall, the battle will be taken up and won for you,
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God?s wrath, for it is written: ?It is mine to avenge; I will repay,?says the Lord."  (Romans 12)

[Mr. Blackwell]