What is a sex offender costume and who made you the arbitrator of that? Many sex offenders are women, many are teenagers, I assume most don’t wear a molester mustache. The comedic exaggeration is the only thing that credibly allows you to call bullshit (because the skit is based on it being bullshit).
This GQ thread has gone down a weird side street. All I wanted to know was whether a certain type of interaction had a specific name.
I’m kind of flabbergasted that some in this thread can’t/wont accept that such an interaction even exists.
TVTropes has an entire page of examples from pop culture about this type of interaction.
Now THAT is dishonest.
You asked a specific question on specific facts. You were told that there was no deceit involved on those facts. “Such an interaction” did NOT INVOLVE DECEIT OR DISHONESTY.
We accept that your interaction existed. “Such an interaction” is confined to the disclosed facts. Coming up with alternative scenarios to try to get agreement that you were deceived and THEN WITHHOLDING FROM RESPONDENTS the facts you had already disclosed is, wait for it,
deceitful.
Other interactions might involve deceit depending on the facts (and imaginary captured generals disclosing state secrets and committing treason are not facts, it needs to be something that happened or could happen. TV is not real. Movies are not real. Imagination is not enough).
Suggesting that the giver of a completely truthful answer to a question which answer left nothing out is required to preface it with a heap of “believe me, please believe me” is ridiculous.
blob, you are fixated on the scenario I described in my OP. My question was not “can everyone please reassure me that in my specific situation, that I was not at fault, but rather, was deceived? Otherwise I’m going to feel like a goose for not believing the truth when I was told it.”
You’re behaving as though that’s what I asked, when I didn’t. I don’t care whether you think I’m seeking reassurance to avoid responsibility for my mistake. If you think I care about getting your reassurance on that, you’re wasting key strokes.
The example I gave in my OP was purely to provide context for my question. I then gave a far more specific hypothetical involving a captive war general, which you weirdly dismissed as a ‘completely implausible’ scenario, despite it being as plausible as mass on Sunday.
You then made a number of assertions that suggested you’re not even grasping the concept itself… that is, the idea that it’s possible to mislead someone by answering a question with the literal truth. You said it requires mind control and mind reading and being able to control the time and place of the interaction etc etc. None of these things are remotely true, so clearly you aren’t grasping the concept. There are now a number of examples in this thread that demonstrate the concept. Are they all implausible too?
Your scenarios don’t make sense. If you think someone will deceive you then you don’t believe anything they say. You don’t make assumptions about whether or not they are lying because you don’t do anything based on their statements.
Okey dokey, here’s the movie scene (watch from 1:06:20) I linked to upthread, where Eastwood’s character is asked why he wants to join the gang. He tells them the truth - it’s so he can turn them in to the authorities. Based on his answer, they let him join the gang.
Now, which part of the scene “doesn’t make sense” to you? I’m happy to explain whichever bit you’re not getting.
You are basing your argument on a spaghetti western?
A rather BAD spaghetti western??
That scene is best described as “ludicrous farce, look how cool the hero is for being so macho, and look how stuuupit the bad guys are”
You might as well base your view on Dirty Harry’s “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you’ve gotta ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?"
Neither scene has any resemblance or bearing on reality.
While I was looking at something else, Wikipedia offers me the words
equivication: a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word,
and
amphibologies: fallacies cause by the double meaning of statements
and Wiktionary gives us [# 1646, Thomas Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, London: Edw. Dod & Nath. Ekins, 1650, Book I, Chapter 4, p. 10,[1]
[…] there are but two [fallacies] worthy our notation; and unto which the rest may be referred: that is the fallacie of Æquivocation and Amphibologie; which conclude from the ambiguity of some one word, or the ambiguous syntaxis of many put together.](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amphibology#English)
My argument is merely that sarcastic confessions exist.
Are you saying that a sarcastic confession has ever been attempted in real life? Or that of those who’ve attempted it, it’s never been successfully pulled off?
Here’s a Reddit thread where people discuss ‘fake’ spoilers they’ve seen on the internet. One poster chimes in with this:
A real life example of someone telling the truth with the intention of not being believed.
Or are people still going to argue that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in real life?
They didn’t tell the truth. They took an actual spoiler and presented it as a hypothetical. And then said someone could say that, did anyone say it? And if they did why does an anonymous internet poster have the kind of credibility which would allow you be deceived in the first place?
Believing or disbelieving a statement is something you do when the statement comes from a credible source. If it’s an unknown source or a source that has been deceptive before then it makes no difference whether the statement is true or not. If you believe or disbelieve a statement coming from a source lacking credibility that’s your own problem to deal with.
For some reason you are insisting that people would disbelieve a statement from a credible source, or make take some action based on a statement from a source they din’t trust.
OP: why did you ask this person the question in the first place? It seems to me like you were the one who was being disingenuous.
I don’t think the described situation is technically lying or deception, but there can be a form of lying in which the speaker knows that the listener will take one word to mean one thing when in fact the speaker technically means another. i.e., “Behave yourself and I’ll give you a marshmallow later.” The listener will quite reasonably take “later” to mean something like “three hours later,” when in fact the speaker doesn’t intend to give the marshmallow until three years later - which is still “later” by definition.