Famous lies througout history?

Great Debates
101

You may have missed a few things. Truly the ability of the founding fathers to control the fledgeling United States was crucial to its survival. The abilities of this group of men cannot be underestimated. However, they were not aristocrats (and royalty is laughable) in the old world sense of the word. They may not have been examples of the rags to riches story in the modern sense, but they were certainly not inheritors of ancient political control either. In addition, the colonies already had a considerable experience with democratic institutions long before the revolution. The men who were in charge by the time the revolution came about had practiced some level of poilitical control (mostly democratically based control) for some time before the war.

In France, the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity somewhat dilluted the idea of “equality of men” with the idea of Fraternity. The Russian revolution diluted it further with the marxist philosophy of the dictatorship of the proletariate. Neither of these revolutions benefitted from a history of democratic practice that the colonies had. Their subsequent problems can better be understood by seeing the ways that they diverged from the “equality of men” concept. Expecially considering that the only thing they (more the Russian example than the French) had in common with it was the desire to through out the kings.

I think you will have to demonstrate more clearly how the American revolution did not carry the theory of “equality of man” to sufficient extent. And you may need to demonstrate that the French revolution did. I certainly think that your evidence for the Russian revolution as an example of more “equality of men” than the American is “lacking” to be kind. Remember, you are questioning the link between the slogans and the activities of these regimes. So simply quoting their slogans will not be proof. What you will have to do is demonstrate that these other regimes granted more power to the theory than did the fledgling United States. Did either of them hold popular elections for their legislators? Thier executive leaders? Which of the leaders of the revolutions who eventually took power (Washington, Robespierre, or Lenin/Stalin) voluntarily give up that power? Which of these regimes proceded to solidify its power through force by executing its rivals?

102

I’ll second those and add:

In six days god made the heavens and the earth;

god created man in his own image;

etc.

103

Deref, your disbelief in something does not automatically make it a lie. Your disbelief, however, can either be attributed to your lack of knowledge, your doubtfulness or your own misinformation.

104

True indeed. Equally, of course, your faith that it is true doesn’t make it so.

Before we start, let’s dispose of the “doubtfulness” issue. Simply doubting something does not make it untrue and, similarly, believing something - no matter how fervently - does not make it the truth. Neither doubt nor belief has any relevance in this context.

Misinformation, of course, implies “willful” misinformation, i.e. a “lie”, and that of course is what we’re discussing.

That leaves lack of information.

How to we judge something to be a lie?

Simply a lack of information/evidence? Well, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so if we refuse to believe something merely because we have no evidence, then we’re not being very sensible. The fact that I haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s impossible, for example, to prove that there are no Martians since I can never see all of Mars, including under the ground, at once. But all it takes is one Martian to prove incontravertably that there are Martians.

Perhaps a lie is discovered when there is reasonable proof that something other than what was stated actually happened. McMillan’s “peace in our time”, for example. He probably believed it when he said it, so was it a lie? Certainly history proved it to be untrue.

So let’s turn it round…how do we know something to be the truth?

We know, or accept, something to be true when there is enough evidence to support it and insufficient evidence to support any other hypothesis. For example, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. There is some evidence, thought not nearly as much, for Lamarkian inheritance of acquired characteristics. There is none whatsover for creation.

Of course, we’re rational beings and if god came down tomorrow and demonstrated beyond doubt that s/he could at least creat a universe, I’d change my mind. Until then, the evidence wins. Evolution is “true”.

Nevertheless, the fact that something is not supported (i.e. is not “true”) doesn’t make it a lie. It could be that, like McMillan’s “peace in our time”, the speaker fervently believes it. It only becomes a lie when someone professes it to be true in contravention of all the available evidence.

So the people who made up the story about the creation - all of them - may not have been lying. They had, in those days, little evidence or the means to discover it. They probably started out thinking that it was a good story to tell the kids then, when they realised it could give them power, or girls, or make sense of the world, they started to convince people, and perhaps even believe themselves, that it was true.

But we know better now. We have the means and the evidence. So are those who tell us it’s true, despite the overwhelming evidence, lying or simply ignorant?

And which is worse - ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?

105

Which is why so many people say it’s impossible to prove a negative (like “there are no Martians”) and that the burden of proof is upon those making the extraordinary claim. If you are saying Martians exist, it’s incumbent on you to prove it, or demonstrate it’s possible, because the best evidence we have indicates that Martians don’t exist.

The quote you’re thinking of was said by Neville Chamberlain.

106

I agree with New Iskander’s point that denying the South the right to self-determination creates a fallacy in the Gettsyburg address.

The majority of Southerners were not slave owners. In fact, only one-third of families owned slaves, and only 4% would be the stereotypical plantation owners. Cite. The war was about preserving the Union at all costs, as was the 50/50 compromise. Despite the political sway that 4% undoubtedly had over the other 96%, the war was not about freeing the slaves, for either side.

Of course, I think the entire tangent is pointless because of what Deref. S/he put it more eloquently than I could have. Thanks! :smiley:

107

Okay, it seems that some people need to go back to elementary school and re-learn the difference between “a false statement” and “a lie”.
A statement can be false WITHOUT being a lie. It’s an incredibly complex concept, but just try to grasp it.

Consider: When I was young, I was taught that the “cytoplasm” was really just a bunch of goo in which organelles and molecules randomly floated. Now, the “cytoplasm” is considered to be highly structured and organized, with a “cytoskeleton” and a lot of directed movement of molecules. Were the textbooks and teachers LYING to me? Should I go accuse them of DEFRAUDING me? No, only an idiot would consider the earlier, erroneous teaching to be “lying”. They were wrong, but they were not lying.

A lie, to be a lie, must be told with the knowledge/belief that it is false ON THE PART OF THE TELLER and the intent to deceive the intended audience to the effect that it is true.

Is that really such a difficult thing to grasp. It is possible to make a statement that is false and it not be a lie. It is possible to make a statement that is of questionable provability and it not be a lie.

108

This has to be one of the all-time great GD exchanges.

Hey, New Iskander, how about just covering your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you! Neener neener neener!” :wally

109

You got it all wrong, dear child. You see, what happened was that two grown-up people had something called a “debate”. “Debate” is when two or more grown-up people exchange opinions. It is OK for grown-up people to have a “debate”, it doesn’t endanger your little world in any way. At the end, one grown-up person asked another: “Did you change your mind?”, and another answered: “No, I did not.” That’s all.

Now, run back to your room. Yes, you may have a lollipop. No, only one lollipop, sweetie…

110

How about this new one to mull over for a bit:

“The British Isles haven’t been invaded successfully since 1066.”

Also, re the 50/50 Compromise: the Dred Scott decision effectively declared such compromises unconstitutional as a limit on the right of an individual to own property. So, for legal intents and purposes there was no such thing as a free state in 1860. Rather, it was legal to own slaves in all United States and territories.

The notion that the South seceeded purely for the right to govern itself without Federal interference is also belied by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law as a part of the Compromise of 1850. The horrible legislation, among other things, allowed federal marshals to require the assistance of individual citizens in the enforcement of its provisions regardless of the convictions of the citizen. Punishment for failing to comply with said marshals could lead to imprisonment for up to six months and a fine of up to $1,000. Slaveowners, it would seem, were selective in their views of Federal interference: when it benefitted them and their institutions they seemed to favor its power, when it threatened their institutions, most notably slavery, they railed against it.

The final straw was the election of 1860, when Lincoln, a favorite in the North who was not even on the ballot in many southern states, still managed an electoral victory, largely because of the huge numbers of recent immigrants who fuled industry and shifted the balance of power in the country from the agricultural south to the industrial north. Abandoning slavery for many southerners, whether they owned slaves or not, meant abandoning their culture to ways that seemed foreign, something they were unwilling to do.

It seems clear to me that the Civil was was predominantly about slavery and the culture that surrounded it, and the refusal of southerners to abandon it despite the fact that it was utterly corrupt.

For that matter, how about this great historical lie:

“They’re happier and better off as slaves.”

111

Take the word “democratic” out, and I will agree with you absolutely. Colonies’ political institutions were based on Engish system, which was not at that time “democratic” at all. Other that that, the point stands. It is exactly right that American revolutionaries had practical experience of participating in the most sound political system known, based on true understanding of human nature and not on philosophic ideals, and their practical experience of good government guided them through all the dangers of American Revolution. It is exactly right that French and Russian revolutionaries didn’t have the benefit of practicing good and sound government, got carried away with ideals and brought disasters to their countries. American revolution succeded on principle of legality, not equality etc.

In France, aristocrats went au lanterne; in Russia, aristocrats went k stenke (to the wall); in US, aristocrats kept the power.

To answer all the questions at once: “US, US, Washington, not US”. But I never criticized the conduct of American revolutionaries, I was making fun of their Declaration of Independence, which doesn’t say specifically: “We will hold true popular elections, our first elected President will never pretend to assume a royal status, we will never execute political rivals to usurp power”, but instead recites vacuous ideals of XVIII century.

DofI was intended for consumption by rotten foreign courts, by corrupt diplomatists of France, Austria, Spain, Russia etc. It was in line with long established political tradition, that requires to prove that one can spout eloquent nonsense before being allowed to talk serious business with the Big Boys. It was never typed in big quantities (until it became a popular house decorating item long after), it was never distributed through masses of people, it was never read to the troops to explain “what are we fighting for”. Writing it was a gesture to demonstrate that “we are serious and we are going all the way” to the whole world; rhetorical flourishes in it are meaningless and ideas behind them long discredited.

112

Welcome to the boards, o’colin!

an darach mor!

113

It’s more accurate to say that we don’t have any evidence that they do. And when it boils down to it, that’s the basis of our system of justice. The law isn’t about truth, it’s about proof.

:smack: D’oh - is my face red! Thanks for the correction, Marley23.

114

I’m a bite late to the thread, but add all US high school history books that teach that Columbus was trying to prove that the world was round. This myth may have started as a tall tale, but now it’s taught as serious history by people who (should) know better. It wasn’t til college that I learned this was a load of bull.

115

You are correct in that respect for law was an important differentiator between the American, French, and Russian revolutions. However I disagree that a lack of respect for law made the French or Russian revolution more in line with the ideal of the equality of man. And I certainly disagree that the two concepts are exclusive of each other. I would say that the American revolution succeeded because it applied the ideal of equality to the ideal of legality. The other 2 did not because they did not. In other words, the founding fathers had enough respect for the ideals of “life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness” to codify them into law (to the best of their cosiderable ability). They had enough respect for these ideals to then respect that law.

I guess I am saying that it was the respect that the founding fathers had for thier ideals (the extent to which they were willing to “get carried away with them”) that allowed them to create the system they did. The French got carried away with revenge and I think the Russians were simply conned.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I don’t understand how you can keep refering to the early rulers of the United States as aristocrats. You have been unsing the term so consistently that I had to look it up. I thought I might have misremembered the definition. But no, it seems that “A member of a ruling class or of the nobility” does not really apply. I draw a distinction between a class and a group. Certainly there was a group of men who controled the government of the United States during its early years. And this group had many characteristics in common. But describing them as a “rulling class”, especially in the context of the time, goes a bit far. Nobility is right out.
Also, your use of the term equality seems to have elluded me. You seem to suggest that the ideals of comunism are truer to the ideal of equality than the Declaration of Independance (or the constitution if I may infer things although you have certainly not stated that explicitly)

I hate to resort to this, but I have to ask you for a cite on this one. My understanding is that it was in fact published in several papers in several languages. This was done along with many of the minutes of the continental congress, federalist papers, and several of the state constitutions. It most certainly was not restricted to a few foreign courts.

Your language is somewhat flowery in a dark way. But your arguments fall short of evidence. The ideals expressed were neither vacuous (they were later expressed as concrete constitutional form of government) nor have they been discredited. The examples you have cited (French and Russian revolutions) were only surpufluously similar to the American revolution in that all three dispensed with kings. The essential difference was that the American revolution was founded on ideals which lead to a government of for and by the people.:wink:

Is it possible that your arguments suffer from the same vacuous meaninlessness that you accuse the Declaration of Independance of? :dubious:

116

Why was it published in several languages? Also, I didn’t say it was “restricted” in distribution.

Answer me that, instead of all the esoteric nonsense, why didn’t they just state the truth? Many objected to my proposition of “F–k King George!” slogan, mostly on esthetic reasons. Well, how about a plain statement of fact? Something like “There is strong popular discontent with policies of the King in American colonies. This discontent was revealed not only by numerous acts of civil disobedience, but also by colonists taking up arms against the King’s troops on many occasions. In fact, strong guerilla movements are already operating throughout the colonies. There is also a Party of men of means and substance determined to lead the rebellion, organize the regular army and conduct the war against the King to establish a new country. In fact, the Second Continental Congress has already assumed the powers of a government of independent country, with majority of delegates voting in support. Therefore…”
Why. Not. Tell. The Truth.

117

Why was it published in several languages? Also, I didn’t say it was “restricted” in distribution.

Answer me that, instead of all the esoteric nonsense, why didn’t they just state the truth? Many objected to my proposition of “F–k King George!” slogan, mostly on esthetic reasons. Well, how about a plain statement of fact? Something like “There is strong popular discontent with policies of the King in American colonies. This discontent was revealed not only by numerous acts of civil disobedience, but also by colonists taking up arms against the King’s troops on many occasions. In fact, strong guerilla movements are already operating throughout the colonies. There is also a Party of men of means and substance determined to lead the rebellion, organize the regular army and conduct the war against the King to establish a new country. In fact, the Second Continental Congress has already assumed the powers of a government of independent country, with majority of delegates voting in support. Therefore…” Something like that would be modest, honest and sincere. And no philosophy.

Why. Not. Tell. The. Truth.

118

It was published in several languages to make it more accessible. Pamphlets were publised in France, Holland, and German that I have heard of. Pamphlets distributed widely, not simply sent to royal courts. I understand you did not say it was restricted (that is prevented from widespread perusal). You did, however, imply that it was meant for courts or governments to see. The fact that many of the founding fathers published it in different languages in popular media belies your claim.

Because. That’s. Not. The. Truth. :slight_smile:

The document claims that natural rights exist. It lists a few of them. It then claims that King George violated these rights. And that therefore the colonies are and have a right to be considered soveriegn nations. It is not an appeal to the discontent in the colonies. It does not claim “We don’t like him so we want to get rid of him”. It certainly cannot be reduced to “F&^k King George”. The philosophy was the whole point. It most certainly was not “esoteric nonsense”.

119

BMalion,

From one Ohioan to another, first, “Go Bucks! Beat Michigan!”

Thank’s for your welcome. I don’t think it’s entirely fair, though. Years ago I used to play the game under a different name. Then I got tossed in the pokey and lost my old moniker.

Now I’m back and have a different attitude. For months I have been trolling for an issue to reintroduce myself and I thought, “Great Lies in History” might be it. I didn’t think, though, that I would enmesh myself in an idiotic discussion over the nature of Natural Law.

C’mon, let’s talk about lies, not philosophy.

120

o’colin: Unless you got a mod’s permission, what you did is against the rules. Tell me you contacted a mod or admin and I’ll believe you.