“Lies and Liars” – incompetent knowledge and/or misuse of the English language
Lies and Liars incompetent knowledge and/or misuse of the English language
Dictionary.com definition of the word lie
noun
1.
afalsestatementmadewithdeliberateintenttodeceive;anintentional untruth;afalsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication , falsification .
Antonyms: truth .
2.
somethingintendedorservingtoconveyafalseimpression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
aninaccurateorfalsestatement;afalsehood.
4.
thechargeoraccusationoftellingalie:
He flung the lie back at his accusers.
Dictionary.com definition of the word liar
noun
1.
apersonwhotells lies .
Too many times have I encountered the use of the ad hominem attacks on NT members by using the words lie or liar. As a required element in the definitions, I emphasize the word intent here. Intent is necessary for a statement to be a lie. Where there is no such intent, then the accusation is a libel. The term slander defines the spoken word, whereas libel is more damaging and refers to the accusation when published, and commenting on NT is in fact publication.
If an incorrect statement is made, it is not considered a lie unless there was an attempt to deceive, so a statement made which was the genuine belief of the writer, whether or not it was true, is NOT a lie, and in such a circumstance it is a libel to call such person a liar. I dont mean just a careless statement made (without believing it oneself), but a serious and genuine one that the maker truly believes. The perpetration of a libel on NT, as it is considered to be a personal attack, should be cause for discipline in accordance with the CoC. This means that the person who uses the words lie or liar without considering that it could be a statement made by someone who believes it to be true, or even a statement innocently made only as a suggestion, or made in questioning something, is being libelled when such statement is called a lie or the person is called a liar.
Challenge the statement - it may deserve challenging, but to do that nobody needs to be called a liar. I would hope that the moderators would understand this and bring to justice those who use such words in an attempt to prove their own points and disparage those of others.
Tags
Who is online
440 visitors
Those who have unfairly called others liars - you know who you are.
This will simplify the whole thing Buzz.
If you could read English you would see that Buzz was discussing those calling others liars . But I can see your point about a lie existing without intent from the person repeating it . Not surprising that someone like yourself who often speaks without care or thought would fully appreciate that distinction . Your ability to evaluate the truth or falsity of a statement is renowned on these threads .
Of course when I said your ability I really meant your inability and complete incompetence in those matters ...
As for #3, John, this is the best I was able to say:
You would have to be really lacking in both knowledge and intelligence to repeat a comment like "Hillary Clinton was the one to assassinate JFK", in which case there could be a number of other things you could be called besides "liar". What I have been trying to point out is that the "accuser" could in such a case just challenge the statement, rather than call the person a liar. That would not make a "slap the ignorant son of a bitch" out of the comment, and keep the discussion on a more mature (dare I say "on a less childish"?) level.
As well, can an opinion or belief ever be a lie? Sure, if the person giving the opinion KNOWS it to be a lie, and intends for it to be untrue. But how often can a proferred opinion, a person's belief, be a lie? If I were to say I believe in a God that is defined by Spinoza and Einstein, then how can it be a lie unless I intend for it to be a lie?
Also: turning a blind eye to the truth is not a valid excuse for repeating a falsehood.
Also: if one is unsure of the validity of a statement, one may always accompany it with reservations like "I read on Breitbart that..." so that everyone understands that the statement is probably fantasy.
But turning a blind eye to the truth does not necessarily create any more reason to call a person a liar - it does give reason to question it, challenge it, keep the dialogue polite.
Providing the reference would at least remove personal responsibility for it.
Imagine a world without labels.......
It could happen.......
It could start here........
Challenge them, and if you fail, pity them, then ignore them. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Can you imagine someone erasing the name ROLEX off of his watch?
Calling the political opinion of an op ed writer a lie or calling said person a liar because one does not believe or want to accept what that writer says is not ok. Calling a reader of that article who believes it a liar for believing it is not right. To call one who seeded such an article here a liar would be libel as the person believing it has no intent to lie.
I wonder if anyone has been able to prove in court a libel action when a person with anonymous identity has been the perpetrator. If it is possible to identify the perp, then maybe, but that would take a complex technological investigation, and to prove damages is another hurdle making the exercise pretty expensive. As well, there are defences for libel and slander, such as truth. fair comment, etc.
LOL
The point is that if you were using a pseudonym that wasn't known to the public then you could not have suffered damages. Your pseudonym can't be the plaintiff unless the public is aware of your real name in which case you would have standing to sue in your real name. As well, you would have to prove that you suffered damages.
Not worth the effort, xx. And you're probably right that a lawyer would most likely not take the case pro bono unless your legal aid system will cover it, but otherwise because there isn't much chance of a recovery a lawyer would not be able to forsee getting a piece of it.