Talk:Lie

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"People lie more on the phone than by email". NewScientist.com. February 12, 2004.

I don't think telling the truth should be equated with lieing. I prefer to reduce ambiguity. Observer

Good invention good intention We canot lie to god cause he knows he put the serpent beneth us so we are to be wiser than that dirty devil Jesus said hold fast till I return to deceive the devil himself is not a lie care for a hand of Dandee Lion lyin dandee Can somebody suggest an example of how telling the truth could be a "lie if the intention is to deceive"? I am unable to think of one. Also, I am not aware that selective truth-telling is actually the same as lying, for example, if I go to the shops and buy some bread and some bananas, and I say "I went and bought some bread" that is not telling the whole truth, but it would be hard to call it a lie. LordK 21:34, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure. Let's say a militant vegetarian asks you, "Did you have any meat for lunch today?" Seeking to avoid a confrontation, you say, "I had a salad," when in fact you had a salad with chicken in it. On its face, your statement is true -- you did have a salad -- but you are saying it with intent to deceive, because the usual interpretation of "salad" is a dish with vegetables only. It is a white lie, of sorts -- a lie by omission, by telling a truth whilst expecting that the hearer's wrong assumptions will lead him to a false conclusion. --FOo 23:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, that is certainly relevant, it is just that I would not refer to that as an actual lie - perhaps a half-truth or "clever trick" - and likewise I would not refer to somebody who behaves that way as a liar. It is certainly appropriate to mention it in the article, I am just not sure that it should be defined as a "type of lie". LordK 14:32, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure, it's a doubtful point. I think Immanuel Kant would consider it a lie, though. :) --FOo 16:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you make the statement about salad in the knowledge that it will mislead the other person ... then though it's technically true, it's dishonest. It's also not answering the question: "Did you have any meat for lunch today?" seeks a yes or no response -- Tarquin 16:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not even that. Instead of yes or no you could answer "I had chicken" but the answer has to be, in essence, relevant to the question. So "I had a salad" is an irrelevant answer, not a lie- just like answering "It's a nice weather outside, isn't it" (which would make the deception more obvious). 194.80.31.104 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikitonary] has as one of its definitions of to lie: "intentionally allowing someone else, who has a right to know the whole truth, believe (trough action or inaction) something else then the whole truth." -- gmlk 06:04, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link to George W. Bush. This site should not be used to promote a political agenda. -Librarian Brent

is it a political agenda to describe the objective fact that George W. Bush lied about WMD, drug use, and his National Guard service? I, for one, in the interests of accuracy and completeness think both Bill Clinton and Bush should have at least a paragraph each describing their lies, but nooooo. Wikipedia's overly delicate sense of political correctness borders on the ridiculous.

Why is it when I link to "White Lie" I have to capitalize the W and L or the link doesn't go to the proper article otherwise? --NeoThe1

In a page about an abstract concept, mentioning political lies seems really biased. The article can be perfectly well written without the use of politically charged situations, IMHO. --Phelan 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't say that propaganda neccesarily is composed only of lies. Wouldn't it hypothetically be possible that some group posses the "truth" (if there is such) and use propoganda techniques to disseminate it?

From the mouths of babes shall come POV

The most commonly cited milestone in the rising of this, what is known as Machiavellian intelligence, is at the human age of about four and a half years, when children begin to be able to lie convincingly. Before this, they seem simply unable to comprehend that anyone doesn't see the same view of events that they do - and seem to assume that there is only one point of view - their own - that must be integrated into any given story.

Remarkably, some adults seem to regress to this behaviour with remarkable ease, especially when editing encyclopedias. :-) JRM 16:17, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Why wa I redirected to this page following a search for 'prevarication'?

Because "prevarication" is a synonym for "lying" or "lie". [1] JRM 13:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

In the case of the Iraq war, for instance, the fact that lies escalated a conflict may have made it a quite serious breach of trust and betrayal of those who would suffer in that conflict. However, anyone who accepts as true the assertion that the regime in place was an inevitable threat to those who perished fighting it, or whose lives are at risk in the aftermath of the invasion, would be far less likely to consider escalating the conflict at the most convenient time to be any kind of betrayal. The perspective of the common sense conservative quite often relies on this kind of assumption of certainty. But if conflicts that are to be escalated are chosen due to some ideology, it is hard to see how this differs from simple might makes right logic.

How can this paragraph possibly be appropriate for a supposedly non-biased encyclopedia?

No mention of Bush, Blair and Aznar? Because of the lack of mention of these atlantic dictators, the wikipedia lie article is a lie itself...

There is also no mention of Pinocchio? I guess his nose is deemed a fallic object and censored off the wikipedia by the FCC...

Rush Limbaugh and the Big Lie

For some reason, this article has no reference at all to the Big Lie tradition being carried on by Rush Limbaugh et al, a very strange omission, imho.

Unfortunately, if you want to get into that can of worms you will have to include all the big lies throughout history, such as the ones told by the socialists (nazis AND communists) FDR, a long list of dictators and ambassadors, a few otherwise honorable chinese emperors, and even Nicolo Machievelli - depending on whether you choose to describe "The Prince" as prescription or description.24.10.102.25 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Anonymous, you claim that Rush Limbaugh carries on the Big Lie tradition. Give one example of Rush Limbaugh lying.Lestrade 21:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

re: Lies and trust

Very convoluted sentences:

the fact that lies escalated a conflict may have made it a quite serious breach of trust and betrayal of those who would suffer in that conflict. However, anyone who accepts as true the assertion that the regime in place was an inevitable threat to those who perished fighting it, or whose lives are at risk in the aftermath of the invasion, would be far less likely to consider escalating the conflict at the most convenient time to be any kind of betrayal

Someone (who understands what author is trying to say) should edit.

Shame

In my experience, the primary reason why most people lie is that they are ashamed of something--an action, an omission to act, a family member, a set of circumstances--and wish to conceal it, because they cannot cope with the brute ugliness of reality.. Whether or not such shame is justified or not is another issue. To avoid becoming ensnared in a web of ever more elaborate deceit, it is necessary a) to avoid false pride, which induces one to feel shame over and thus lie about one's wealth, family background, sexual prowess, academic and/or vocational achievements, etc; b) to refrain from behaving in a shameful manner, whether by commission or omission. None of this is easy. Perhaps the most difficult words to utter in the English language are "I was wrong," "I made a mistake," "I failed," or "I didn't try hard enough." --Bamjd3d

Is it possible for someone to be clinically diagnosed as a liar? If so what is the term for the "disease"?

I believe he/she would be called a Pathological_liar, don't know if that is the clinical term. --Phelan 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics and Sociology of Lying

I have removed that second paragraph from the quoted work as being entirely irrelevant and polemic. It is one thing to include a discussion of the framework for determining what is or is not a lie by using a commonly understood context. It is quite something else to make gratuitous political arguments. To those who loudly wail about the neutrality policy, I point out that the only way this encyclopedia gains general acceptance is by that very studied approach to finding neutral ground. Otherwise, this page just becomes an extention of the dopiness that can be found on the Kos and will end up being equally ignored.Dawgknot 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I review this, certainly a citation for a source is needed. I have looked for one but cannot find it immediately. While I have no doubt that Lakoff is no fan of the President (and therefore places the use of this quote in question), there is no indication that he was "criticizing" the President as the article states. On the face of it, his analysis seems fair and balanced. Can't find the code to remove the blue highlighting around the opening statement Dawgknot 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even mentioning Bush or the Iraq war bothers me. I am pleased the section is so NPOV - considering. However, can't someone come up w an equivalent example that doesn't involve a current, ongoing example? Please?67.164.212.239 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lie By Omission

Technically, a lie by omission isn't a lie. A lie in the purest form of definition is a false statement meant to mislead.

Going with the "Salad and Militant Vegetarian" premise, say you did tell the vegetarian that you had a salad, but didn't tell him that it was a chicken ceaser salad, it's true that you had a salad.

You didn't make a false statement with the intent to decive, but rather, the exact opposite, which is a true statement with an intent to deceive.

An amphiboly is also related to a lie by omission in a way that an amphiboly is a shift of usage of a word with the intent to decieve (Like if you told that same militant vegetarian that you had a vegetarian dish, and what you meant by a vegetarian dish was a dish made from vegetarian animals.)

ColdRedRain 08:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "lie of omission' is in fact a half-truth, and a half-truth is a lie, problem is the current definitions of half-truth don't make note of this phenomena.

In 1987 it was noted that truths can lie, and most people could not understand this.

A website has been set up to expose this, as well I have contributed several suggestions to improve the current definitions (they are logically connected) of words such as "truth', 'half-truth' and 'lie'. (wiktionary.org)

If would be appreciated if your encyclopedia would list a link to " THE JESUS CHRIST CODE: The LIGHT: The RAinbow of Truth. http://www.jesuschristcode.com

Thanks.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocose Lies

I think jocose lies should be explained more in-depth in the article, to cover where a person can draw the line between a joke and a real lie. Personally, I think jocose lies are not really lies, because either the jocose lie sounds so ridiculous that another person will automatically know that you are trying to joke or you say something that's not true without an intent on keeping whoever's hearing you deceiving by saying right after that you're just kidding. April Fool's Day jokes would be all be wrong if people thought all jokes were wrong, and I don't really believe that they are. --The Chinchou

I believe most of what you seem to be calling jocose lies could be called Irony or Sarcasm.--Phelan 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that this page exists. I do not believe in the liberal definition of a lie, instead I believe that wild guesses are lies that should not be submitted. A person should not be permitted to challenge the public to prove that his comments are untrue. Too many people guess at the truth and place the information into Wikipedia, pretending that their statements are true. IMHO, such people are liars.Superslum 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really a Lie

The quote about Jesus lying is not necessarily true.

"I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come. However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret."

Jesus leaving after the others leaving only means that the "right time" had come.--Padishar 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's easy to pull out a single verse out of context to make your point. I this case, the neither the editor or philosopher Schopenhauer bother with the context or the in-depth commentaries. I propose that the Schopenhauer line and the line from the following section be removed. Input please. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be taken out because this article is about lies, and it would only seem that Jesus lied, when he really didn't. --Padishar 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Burnside is said to be the first president of the National Rifle Association. New International Encyclopedia revealed to me that William Conant Church was the first president of the NRA. IMHO the claim that General Burnside was the first president is a flagrant lie. I am uncertain of whether or not President Grant served as the 8th president of the NRA. The article asserts that he served as the 8th president of the NRA. Superslum 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) See: Xn. 24 @ U.S. Grant Superslum 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution, Game Theory and the Lie section is original research, makes factual claims with no attempt at citation, takes one-sided POV stance on various ethical issues, is written too informally and too patronizingly with excessive jargon and cliches, etc. It needs to be either completely revamped or eliminated altogether, probably the latter. To that end I've deleted the most flagrant portions but it still requires more cleanup.

I'm also concerned about whether the definition of "lie" presented here is universally accepted... is there a consensus in the academic ethics community that half-truths fall under the same classifications as clear mistruths?

Etiquette of lying

Under the heading, "Etiquette of lying" a link to Augustine needs to be linked to the Augustine pertaining to the context of the article and not the disambiguation page. I am not sure who this is or I would myself, could someone more adept with the subject update this?

--The Rumour 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truth = White lie.

It is perhaps very logical to speak of a half-truth as a white lie.

White is usually a metaphor for Truth, and one type of half-truth is a white lie.

Example: Where are you going ? I am going to get gas. (this is a half-truth) The truth omitted is that after getting gas I am going to Church. ;0)

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]