# Lies, Liars and Lying **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 26, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495 "2005-09-26T14:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/21 "2005-09-26T17:58:45Z")
**Wring** , would you care to respond to my post? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/22 "2005-09-26T18:01:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just an exercise in considering the source, **D**. > > Would you really have preferred yet another discussion about how what’s legally allowable isn’t the same as what’s morally allowable, a distinction I’m sure **wring** had in mind? Or is yet another attempt by \*\*Bricker \*\* to make every discussion solely about the law any less “thread shitting” than yet another attempt by \*\*Liberal \*\* to make every discussion about epistemology and himself? Seeing as **Bricker** and **wring** are on the same page, I’d say his posts are in the spirit of the thread, and enlightening if the person who made the original statement enters the thread. **wisernow** ’s drive-by was an one-time attempt at humor, foiled by poor coding (the message board equivalent of having to explain a joke). You, on the other hand, have statements lined up and ready to fire off at board republicans, and you don’t give an airborne rodents buttocks where you fire them. The only source that needs considering _in this thread_ is the source of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/23 "2005-09-26T18:01:59Z")
I think saying no one is entitled to lie, is like saying no one is entitled to steal bread from a shop. They are generally true, but in cases of scavenging for food in New Orleans I expect most would say that the ‘right’ to eat outweighed the badness of stealing the bread. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/24 "2005-09-26T18:06:49Z")
> [@wring](#): > > **however** , to flat out assert that companies are not “entitled” to lie to their customers? So, when I go to Sears and see the tag “regular price $200, sale price, $150”, there’s no chance that Sears is hiding the fact that they never charge $200? I suspect that the legal framework dealing with this kind of lying is quite large. For example, as regards the example above, see the following from the website of the Massachusetts AG: “(2) Deceptive Pricing. No claim or representation shall be made which represents or implies, in advertising or otherwise, that a product or service may be purchased for a specified price when such is not the case; **or that a product or service is being offered for sale at a reduced price when such is not the case** ; or that such special or reduced price is to be in effect for a limited time only when such is not the case; or otherwise deceives purchasers or prospective purchasers with respect to the price of products or services offered for sale.” (Bolding mine). Other states may have different regulations, but I would expect that consumer protection would generally be pretty expansive, human nature being what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/25 "2005-09-26T18:12:05Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > According to this one, it averages out to twice a day. Sometimes it’s intentional, but I also believe that a great deal of the time, it’s merely that people have selective memory; they believe something happened the way they want to remember it, not the way it really happened, and end up lying, even though they are normally honest people. At that point, I think it becomes a matter of definition. For me, I have a hard time saying someone lied if they honestly thought they were telling the truth: the **intent** to deceive is a necessary component of a lie, as far as I’m concerned. But like I said, that’s a semantic difference: it’s certainly legitimate to consider the intent to deceive an optional component of lying. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/26 "2005-09-26T18:18:46Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > _Fraud_ is oft-times defined as “theft, by deception”. By whom? A more proper definition includes the elements of depriving another of property or rights through deception, and _also_ an inherent advantage that the fraudulent party holds over the victim. If you advertise the Bosda penis enlarger, I buy it, and it doesn’t work, caveat emptor. If you call me and persist into talking me into buying one, we are much closer to a legal definition of fraud. Note: despite my example, my unité estimée simply couldn’t be any bigger without becoming a danger to others. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/27 "2005-09-26T18:27:57Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > If you advertise the Bosda penis enlarger, I buy it, and it doesn’t work, caveat emptor. If you call me and persist into talking me into buying one, we are much closer to a legal definition of fraud. If you offer for sale something which doesn;t do what it’s name claims it will do, that looks like fraud to me, especialy if I can’t test it before buying it. I shouldn’t even have to ask, “Will this really enlarge my penis?” It’s like buying a thing in a sealed box labelled “CD player”, taking it home, and finding it won’t play CDs. The seller knows what’s in the box, and presumably should know what services it will perform. If you think I’m wrong, then I’ve got a very nice bridge to sell you, already wrapped up in this sealed carton. ---
**Author:** ![LilyoftheValley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/54ee81/32.png) [@LilyoftheValley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilyoftheValley)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/28 "2005-09-26T18:43:59Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I suspect that the legal framework dealing with this kind of lying is quite large. For example, as regards the example above, see the following from the website of the Massachusetts AG: > > “(2) Deceptive Pricing. No claim or representation shall be made which represents or implies, in advertising or otherwise, that a product or service may be purchased for a specified price when such is not the case; **or that a product or service is being offered for sale at a reduced price when such is not the case** ; or that such special or reduced price is to be in effect for a limited time only when such is not the case; or otherwise deceives purchasers or prospective purchasers with respect to the price of products or services offered for sale.” (Bolding mine). > > Other states may have different regulations, but I would expect that consumer protection would generally be pretty expansive, human nature being what it is. Funny that you cite the Massachusetts law. When I read the OP I was reminded of the fact that Kohl’s constantly advertises things that are never sold at full price as “on sale”. The Mass AG originally pursued this as a violation of the law. However, [in 2004, he decided not to prosecute them after all](http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/10/17/reilly_wont_pursue_kohls_over_pricing_practices/): > [@](#): > > Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly concluded that Kohl’s Department Stores violated a state law that prohibits false advertising of sale prices, but he decided not to prosecute the company because the retailer convinced him the case was not worth pursuing…Nevertheless, Reilly took no action against the Wisconsin retailer because officials at the attorney general’s office became convinced a prosecution would do consumers more harm than good. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/29 "2005-09-26T19:13:03Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > If you think I’m wrong, then I’ve got a very nice bridge to sell you, already wrapped up in this sealed carton. I think you’re wrong. The difference is making a claim that can instantly and empirically be proven false, and making a claim that can be subjectively interpreted. The latter is the cornerstone of marketing misdirection. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/30 "2005-09-26T19:26:37Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > _Fraud_ is oft-times defined as “theft, by deception”. > > Roll that around in your frontal lobes for a while, there’s a good chap. > :rolleyes: Official response: what the fuck? How is that in any way responsive to the issue I raised? Something may indeed be “oft defined” does not mean “always” and does not mean the reverse is true. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/31 "2005-09-26T19:42:29Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > I think you’re wrong. The difference is making a claim that can instantly and empirically be proven false, and making a claim that can be subjectively interpreted. The latter is the cornerstone of marketing misdirection. Well, calling something a “penis enlarger” is a claim that can empirically be tested, even if not instantly. So, if “penis enlargers” do not in fact enlarge penises, then calling them that is a lie and is part of a fraud to get money with a false claim. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/32 "2005-09-26T20:03:13Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Well, calling something a “penis enlarger” is a claim that can empirically be tested, even if not instantly. So, if “penis enlargers” do not in fact enlarge penises, then calling them that is a lie and is part of a fraud to get money with a false claim. Just to play devil’s advocate; would it be safe to say that the penis in question is larger than it was prior to vigorously applying the “enlarging” cream? According to the [Federal Trade Commision,](http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm) the following rules apply: > [@](#): > > What makes an advertisement deceptive? > According to the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that: > > ``` > *** is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and > * is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.** > > ``` > > What makes an advertisement unfair? > According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC’s Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if: > > ``` > * it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and > ***it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.** > > ``` Bolding mine (obviously). I think quite a few advertisers go more by whether or not the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit to consumers than they do whether or not the ad is misleading. If they can point and say a majority of consumers are satisfied compared to the relatively few who complain, then they have fulfilled their promises. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/33 "2005-09-26T20:06:31Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Well, calling something a “penis enlarger” is a claim that can empirically be tested, even if not instantly. So, if “penis enlargers” do not in fact enlarge penises, then calling them that is a lie and is part of a fraud to get money with a false claim. Perhaps this example hits too close to home. Don’t worry little dude, maybe it hasn’t stopped growing yet. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/34 "2005-09-26T23:45:57Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Official response: what the fuck? > > How is that in any way responsive to the issue I raised? Something may indeed be “oft defined” does not mean “always” and does not mean the reverse is true. Doubletalk. Fraud is fraud. False claims about an item for sale are fraud. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/35 "2005-09-27T00:39:09Z")
and we see now an idiot is an idiot. So? ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/36 "2005-09-27T01:04:40Z")
> [@wring](#): > > and we see now an idiot is an idiot. So? Your low personal standards of honesty are not compensating for your less-than-imaginative Pitting techniques, Sunshine. The act of deliberate, willful deception as to whether or not a product works is fraud, like it or no. And, if no, a judge can adjuxst your bad boy attitude. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/37 "2005-09-27T01:28:44Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > Fraud is fraud. > False claims about an item for sale are fraud. For clarification, I assume you are talking from a lay perspective. From a legal perspective, “false claims about an item for sale” are not necessarily fraud. Fraud requires more than mere falsity; generally, the falsity must be with respect to a material issue. In addition, fraud requires reliance. So merely making a false statement about something may not be fraud and, in fact, may not even be actionable. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/38 "2005-09-27T09:34:47Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > Your low personal standards of honesty are not compensating for your less-than-imaginative Pitting techniques, Sunshine. Wouldn’t it also be dishonest to accuse someone of low standards of honesty, not because it has been shown to be true, but merely because they disagreed with you? Recognizing that there is no legal requirement to be honest in certain circumstances does not make you dishonest. It does even mean you like the situation, just that you recognize the facts. But you should know that. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2005, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495/39 "2005-09-27T11:18:37Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > Wouldn’t it also be dishonest to accuse someone of low standards of honesty, not because it has been shown to be true, but merely because they disagreed with you? > > Recognizing that there is no legal requirement to be honest in certain circumstances does not make you dishonest. It does even mean you like the situation, just that you recognize the facts. But you should know that. aww, don’t be so harsh on the guy, he seems to be having a difficult time ‘wrapping his mind around’ the concept that “some” does not mean “all” for example. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lies-liars-and-lying/323495.md?page=1)