Recent E1a ruling concerning the word 'Lie'

[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!"