Lately I've noticed something, here on the board and in the public debate in general - the use (and potentially the misuse) of the accusation "liar."

To me, a lie is when you knowingly, willingly make a claim that you know for a fact to be completely untrue. If I told you guys I'm 25 years old, I would be lying. If I told you I lived in Wyoming, I would be lying. Etc, etc, etc.

But lately it seems that mere errors or differences of opinion are being cast as lies. For example, in another thread I attributed words from the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution. A goofy mistake, I admit, and I should have been more careful. But it was not, I assure you, a malicious act. Jim Allen, though, called me a "liar," in a tone that to me suggested no sarcasm or irony. It struck me as a pretty straightforward accusation, and further struck me as a bit odd - sort of like Alex Trabeck calling a Jeopardy! contestant a liar after they miss a question.

Not to pick on Jim Allen (Jim Allen: "Liar!"), but in another thread he accused Phyliss Schlafly's son of lying after he claimed, "The truth is, family values people... are not out to bash gay people."

I read Mr. Schlafly's comment not as a factual claim, but more as an assertion or an opinion. (I take the "The truth is" more as a 9th grade comp device than any sort of statement of fact.) A flawed opinion, no doubt, but an opinion none the less. And I don't think people can lie per se when they state an opinion.

I'm seeing this more and more in the presidential race, etc. If Bush says he wants to protect Medicare, and the Democrats believe his ideas don't serve that purpose, they don't say his ideas are wrong. They say he's lying. I'm sure the lefties on the board could find examples of Republicans doing the same things to Democrats.

Or with intelligence: Many Democrats claim that statements based on flawed or questionable intelligence are not inaccuracies, and not even reasonable risks involved in the use of data that is almost by nature uncertain, but rather a flat-out lie.

So what is a lie, exactly? Just wondering what you guys think.

[ December 18, 2003, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Anything that sets your pants on fire. wink

A great question, William. I believe "lying" involves conscious or unconscious intention, which is to say, you have to know what you're saying is a lie but state it any way. Lying, dissembling, fudging the truth--they lie on the same spectrum (pun intended).

If a person states something he or she is convinced is true, but later proves to be false, that's not lying, but misstating the case, or being mistaken, or erring. I don't think you were lying in the threads you stated, and I just responded to your post of the info on the Saddam-Atta link to say I didn't think *you* were lying--Safire and others have championed this same information.

A related issue is when people misstate things or err, and then say, "I lied." Or, "I'm a liar." But if they were incorrect and didn't realize it at first, then they weren't lying. Were they? Shouldn't they say, "I erred?" Or "Oops, I'm wrong."

In terms of W, I think he's constantly let off the hook. With the last president, we had the Right continuously calling the man a liar. (And a murderer and a rapist and everything else.) He lied about getting his affair with "that woman," but so many of the other allegations were grossly unfounded. Even after a $40+ million investigation. I know you strongly support president W. But really, William, look at it this way: whether you support the man or not, you have to agree that quite often, he has stated things that have proven not to be true shortly after. I'm convinced that in some cases, he simply doesn't know the truth and has been fed the information, whether it's wrong or not, and has been convinced it's true, so for political reasons, he runs with it. In other cases, he has known clearly that what he's saying is untrue (like the claims not to have been briefed extensively about the 9/11 dangers, or his increasingly strident WMD charges, or the true effects of his Medicare stance, or that he was "compassionate"--this was a man who mocked a Christian woman on the verge of being executed!, or that he was going to govern in a bipartisan way, etc.), but has stated things anyway and just lied.

It's serious, because he IS the president, and not just some little hick running a cowtown somewhere. Maybe some of his supporters do believe everything he says, and maybe a lot, like you and TomFord (have shown), don't always believe his lies, but do believe in him ideologically so you'll forgive him almost anything. Democrats, Greens, people of ALL parties do this. Look at 20th century Communist diehards, who were wiling to overlook Stalin's deadly policies. Eric Hobsbawm, the eminent British Marxist historian, still will not fully address Stalin's crimes.

But my issue is that the man lied regularly BEFORE taking office; he didn't tell the truth about his AWOLing, he didn't tell the truth about Harken, he didn't tell the truth about his DUI, and on and on. So, with this guy, you know, there's a precedent. How can I ever fully trust him now?

W has also sanctioned or authorized high level lies, like the outrageous claims about France allowing Iraqis to get French passports in Syria--this charge has never been backed up, it was made by someone in the Pentagon clique, and then just dropped. But it did serious public damage to an ally. And it was obviously a lie, or it would have been brought to light by now. This is what enrages many of his opponents: that he lies with impunity, AFTER having claimed (was it a lie? I don't exactly think so for a change) that he was going to change the tone in Washington, and so on.

In the case of Phyllis Schlafly's son (John? who is gay--not the liberal lawyer one or the extreme right-wing computer science one, both of whom are straight), he knows quite clearly that his mother and others in Eagle Forum have consciously sought to demean gay people, and that have done tremendous, intentional harm to homosexuals, so to claim otherwise is disingenuous as best, and outright duplicitous at worst.

[ December 18, 2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

My question to you is, why are we "lefties" the only ones looking.

Anyway, your point about being called a liar seems moot on this board. I've been called an idiot and stupid diretly and indirectly a number of times. Would I start a thread showing how my postings are not really idiotic? (No, but apparently I would participate in one. )

The president has made a lot of people bitter, William. You say it's illegitimate for them to feel that way, but they're going to feel it anyway. The words "unpatriotic," "unamerican," and "traitor" are flung at anyone who voices even the smallest dissent on certain policies ... do you take as strong an exception to that?

For what it's worth, I should have mentioned in my orginal post that I really hate Ann Coulter's irresponsible use of words like "Slander" and "Treason" in her works. It's sort of dashing, but I think it belittles those concepts and needlessly dramatizes claims that, I believe, would be sound without the hyperbole. But I do like reading Ann Coulter for some reason. She's definitely a guilty pleasure.

I can't imagine anyone taking AC's use of "slander" and "treason" seriously. I always suspected even she knew it was rhetorical bluster, but, yeah, her misuse does debase the terms.

Where to begin. I think accusations of idiocy and stupidity are really not as serious as a charge of lying, simply because the former are both obviously subjective terms - there's no way to "prove" idiocy or stupidity, really - whereas the latter is a claim that, to me, should have some basis in actual, documented fact. I don't think you're stupid or an idiot, for what it's worth.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement. If you're saying I should have included instances of Republicans unfairly demeaning the left, perhaps you're right, and I did in a subsequent post, but the post seemed long as it was, and quite frankly I'm a Republican and I'm better at finding infractions committed by Democrats. Finding fault with Republicans is better left to the experts, IMHO.

Yes, President Bush has undoubtedly made people bitter, but I'm not sure where exactly I've said "it's illegitimate for them to feel that way." If I said something that can be construed as suggesting that, I apologize. If this post suggests that, it was not my intent. I'm not saying the President's opponents shouldn't be bitter - though I don't think bitterness is the best political strategy, or at least it didn't work all that well for Republicans during the Clinton Years - but just questioning one manifestation of that bitterness, and of bitterness throughout our political debate - the use and misuse of the charge of lying.

"The words 'unpatriotic,' 'unamerican,' and 'traitor' are flung at anyone who voices even the smallest dissent on certain policies ... do you take as strong an exception to that?" Yes, if I knew precisely what you are talking about. Obviously people get passionate about politics and say stupid things. I've heard Democrats suggest and claim outright that President Bush and his policies are "unpatriotic," "unamerican," and "immoral." I didn't intend for this thread to be about political hyperbole in general, but rather the specific accusation of lying, and when it is appropriate and/or accurate.

[ December 18, 2003, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Isn't the reason you guys enjoy AC based on her being a very entertaining and take-no-prisoners writer? She skewers the opposition, and even I have to say at times, damn, she's good AND hilarious. But that doesn't dispel the fact that you also may be aware of her lies, misstatements, and at times, sheer inanity. You'll overlook it because you find her entertaining. There are people who take her comedy as the truth--that's scary!

And yet you spent a great deal of time in your first post explaining how while statements can be untrue, there is a subjective, unprovable motive element necessary to qualify as lying. That sounds to me like the word \"liar\" is somewhat subjective.

Finding fault with policies should not be left to only those in the opposing party. That's not the way it should work, in MY honest opinion.

OK, now, you will never concede this point, but I want to say it. Your rhetoric is pissy and sarcastic, as I have said before. You dismiss casual to extreme denunciations of Bush, the Republicans, conservative ideology, etc., with nasty rhetoric. So you have little ground to proclaim yourself as having never explicitly said "their bitterness is illegitimate." Fine, that was my paraphrase, and I hold it to be accurate after having read many of your posts dismissing well-supported opinions.

And, OK, your thread wasn't about political hyperbole, but I attacked the selectiveness of your gripe by pointing out that -- since you were using instances on this board of specific people calling you a liar -- aggressive language is common practice here and, perhaps, to suggest that you only take offense when you and yours are called a liar, but not when the "lefties" are. So, you ask this question about a word and how upset you are that it is used inappropriately and with reckless abandon, but I think you are really only upset when it gets directed at you. You barely concede that Ann Coulter and her genre of windbags might be a little wrong for calling distinguished people and well accepted ideas "traitorous," but then you temper it with, "well, but we all know she's just kidding."

Well, I will accept every "stupid" and "idiot" thrown my way, but I DON'T think she's kidding. At least, I don't think her loyal followers are.

So if you want to explore why "liar" is over used in your direction, you might have to look at the broader picture and ask why are so many people nasty in public discourse. You might ask this even if it is a little off topic.

[ December 18, 2003, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

Re: "You dismiss casual to extreme denunciations of Bush, the Republicans, conservative ideology, etc., with nasty rhetoric."

Not so. He responds to bitter, nasty rhetoric directed the President, conservatives, everyone who doesn't think Dean isn't the second coming. You can't claim William's responsible for the nastiness, the name-calling, etc.

I didn't. I said his complaint was selective.

Actually my point is that, to me, a lie is very provable, and not all that subjective. Again, if I say I'm 25, I'm lying, because I was born in 1972. If I say I'm young, and somebody says I'm lying, I don't think that's fair, because my claim is based not on any accepted definition of "young," but rather my perception of age, with which one can disagree.

Oh, I'll concede that I'm sarcastic. Not pissy, just because I don't like the word.

[quote]araanib:
[QUOTE] So if you want to explore why \"liar\" is over used in your direction, you might have to look at the broader picture and ask why are so many people nasty in public discourse. You might ask this even if it is a little off topic. [/quote]That's easy. It's Bill Clinton's fault.

[quote]William1865:
[quote]araanib:
[QUOTE] So if you want to explore why \"liar\" is over used in your direction, you might have to look at the broader picture and ask why are so many people nasty in public discourse. You might ask this even if it is a little off topic. [/quote]That's easy. It's Bill Clinton's fault. [/quote]Really? I thought it is the fault of this pompous, arrogant administration that divided this country. And, now, get back on topic...

So only in an instance where the terms are completely idenifiable and undisputed can a lie happen? Are you a lawyer?

I think that you have so narrowly defined "lying" that it's almost never appropriate to use. Where do you draw the line? If you said you were 25, you might argue that you are 25 ... POUNDS on the planet Neptune. If we can only call people liars who intentionally say false, specific statememnts that can in no one's broad creativity be considered true, then no one lies. Bill Clinton DIDN'T have "sex with that woman," he got blown. But many (perhaps not you) called him a liar. How could they when he was so clearly devoid of blame?!

[ December 18, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: araanib ]

At the end of the day AC is no different than Mr Frankin or M&M, now is she? Just depends on which side of the debate you are on.

AC is brash.. not afraid to say something not in the PC world... but so Does M%M and Frankin.

Let me just say that I appreciate William1865 for posting this thread - and I think it is actually a symptom of something quite bigger - the general lack of civil discourse in politics today. When the Democrats and Republicans in the House don't even speak to each other (and the Senate is nearly as bad), then we have reached a crisis point in our civil life, because without civility we cannot function as a diverse society.

To answer William1865's question, I think lying is when you make statements you either know to be untrue or suspect to be untrue, or are deliberately misleading. For example, when the "Christian" Right says "homosexuals are far more likely to molest children than straight men" that is a lie, although it is based on objectively true information. The lie comes in when the "Christian" Right does not reveal the grand assumption that turns objective data (1/4 - 1/3 of all the children molested by men are boys) into a lie (all of those molesting men are gay).

This administration, if not outright lying all the time, has a history of using outdated, misidentified, deliberately slanted and otherwise faulty information to make its case. At some point, someone in the administration is lying, because at some point in the vetting process someone knows that the objectively true information is being distorted (e.g., only intelligence that points to WMDs in Iraq is given to the President). Whether that means Bush has actually lied (made a knowingly false statement) is a question we can't answer, because we don't know his mind. But as the leader of the administration, the buck should stop at his desk, and so he is responsible for the lie.

posted by TomFord:
You're right, TomFord, William1865 is not responsible for all the outrageous rhetoric or nastiness on this board. But your characterization of those he is nasty too is a generalization of the worst order. William1865 (and I say this with all my love, William) has responded in bitter sarcastic ways to valid arguments against his position - and he is not the only Bush supporter to do so. And there are a lot of people who disagree with William1865 who have been just as sarcastic and snippy about arguments against their positions.

I would love to see us make a far better attempt at dealing with issues and not resorting to name-calling. I know that early on in my own presence on this board I attempted to cool my own rhetoric and deal with facts/opinions/etc in a relatively classy way. I have not always managed that, but I think the effort is important.

After all, this is more than merely a web site, it is really one of the new types of communities for the new millenium (Christ, I sound like a bad technology commercial). We don't merely interact on a web site or discussion board, and I know my own reaction to William1865 has been muted by my getting to know the person, and not the handle.

It's very simple.

On a number of occasions--I can't be arsed to dig up examples this early in the morning--instead of responding to something someone has written with a counter-argument or a link or facts, you'll just snark at them because they didn't repeat exactly what you had written. As a silly example (Note: W1865 never wrote this and it is intended for demonstration purposes only. No connection with reality is implied): "I never said the sun was yellow. I said it was yellowish". Or you'll just type "Great, thanks". I edited that post 4 or 5 times, most of them variations on "The Founding Fathers were products of The Enlightenment and Francophiles who had seen what the Wars of Religion had done to Europe. They deliberately ommitted any references to an omnipotent being" but figured that you'd just type "Great, thanks". I greatly respect your intelligence and political knowledge and I guessed (correctly) that you were just being a bit sloppy. I know you mainly post to wind-up lefties who are easily offended, but I find your debating tactics frustrating and a waste of that intelligence and knowledge. I love snark as much as anyone--it's the oxygen for my Amazing Race recaps after all--but would it kill you to also actually debate the issue? I figured that "Liar" was the only thing that was going to get a reaction out of you. Turns out I was probably correct.

Was John Schlafly technically "lying" in the purest semantic sense? Most likely not, but to be even slightly charitable, as the English would say, he was "being economical with the truth". Almost anyone who's followed the culture wars would mock his assertation, as one person after me did.

And in the thread in question, I posted something that was pure speculation and noted in brackets that my speculations were subject to change if someone could come up with a compelling challenge to the underlying assumption. I *wanted* to find out if my train of thought was on the right track but then you posted about me speculating and drawing unfounded conclusions etc. without bothering to address WHY that underlying assumption was wrong. You know, I'm way to the left politically but I'm not a doctrinaire Leninist in 1920's Moscow. I listen to reason and verifiable facts as I see them and will gladly change my mind.

I just thought it was hilarious that someone who snarks at others for not parroting exactly what he had written could get such a basic fact incorrect.

[ December 18, 2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

By your definition, William, the only person who will ever know if you lie about something is yourself. I can't prove that you know you're 25. Maybe you've forgotten and think you're still 24. I honestly often have to stop and think to figure out my age. Maybe you have a multiple personality disorder and the personality in control of you at the time thinks you're 16. There's no way you can ever verify whether someone actually knew what he was saying was untrue at the time he said it. At best you can verify the information was given to him at some time, but I'm sure that it could be proven that at some time you knew the passage you quoted was from the Declaration of Independence. It's probable that you just forgot, but there's no way I can *know* that.

William asked:
So what is a lie, exactly? Just wondering what you guys think.

Here is an example of a lie...
Say person "A" (or "W", whatever) posts comments on the board, person "B" (or "R", whatever) reads his comments and picks out one part of the comment , person "B" (or "R",whatever) cuts and pastes that comment that person "A" (or "W", whatever) made and remarks on said comment.

Then person "A" (or "W", whatever) goes back and deletes the comment he made and accuses person "B" (or "R", whatever) of making it up.
That is a lie, making that person (person "A", or "W",whatever) a liar.

(For an example, notice how I cut and pasted William's question "So what is a lie, exactly? Just wondering what you guys think." from his original post. Now, say if William were to go back and delete that part of his posting and then say I just made it up, that would make him a liar and in my opinion a person of low integrity. But of couse this is all hypothetical.)

Bitter much, Raze?

Lie much, William?

Is that German?

Please stop the endless quotes, or the thread police are gonna get ya!

tally ho

aranib: re: "I didn't. I said his complaint was selective."

You wrote, "You dismiss casual to extreme denunciations of Bush, the Republicans, conservative ideology, etc., with nasty rhetoric."

Parsed, that reads: "You dismiss...with nasty rhetoric." My response: he doesn't.

Now, you may have meant his complaint was selective elsewhere, but that's not what I was responding to.

Huh?

...or God will kill a kitten.

Please, think of the kittens.

An interesting article by Heather Havrilesky of Salon:
The Year of the Liar.