# The Other Waldo Pepper, you're kind of a lying prick **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 9, 2016, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563 "2016-01-09T04:40:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/1 "2016-01-09T04:40:08Z")
There is a thread in Elections where The Other Waldo Pepper has, in my estimation, been a colossal piece of shit. The issue starts [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19000672&postcount=3741). It sums up to me saying, I’m okay with a politician promising X and getting it for most except a small subset. Specifically I said I’d give it a, “meh”. But TOWP has decided that I must be okay with a politician making laws that single out Muslims, since they’re a small subset. I know he’s trying for a gotcha, but it’s just so stupid. He’s gone on about that for many posts, and I’ve just decided to not engage. Has he always acted like this? I don’t really recall him being such a knob. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/2 "2016-01-09T04:55:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > But TOWP has decided that I must be okay with a politician making laws that single out Muslims, since they’re a small subset. No, I haven’t. I don’t think you’re okay with that. You’ve repeatedly said you aren’t. I’ve repeatedly agreed that you aren’t. Why do you keep claiming otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/3 "2016-01-09T05:16:26Z")
A failure to communicate can often lead to vociferous and angry agreement. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/4 "2016-01-09T05:19:31Z")
**Lobahan** , you’re wrong. He’s not saying you’re OK with targeting Muslims, he’s saying that you wouldn’t always excuse a lie, as you said you would, if it is true for most people. He pointed to a specific example when you wouldn’t. But you want to have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/5 "2016-01-09T05:29:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Lobahan** , you’re wrong. He’s not saying you’re OK with targeting Muslims, he’s saying that you wouldn’t always excuse a lie, as you said you would, if it is true for most people. He pointed to a specific example when you wouldn’t. But you want to have it both ways. What was said: **Lobohan** : _If a GOP guy said, “You can do X” and in some small subset, they couldn’t do X, I’d say, “meh.”_ **TOWP** : _Well, “unless you’re a citizen of this country who happens to be Muslim” is ~1%. Izzat a small enough subset?_ He’s saying that my being okay with someone getting most of the way to completeing a promise should equal someone getting the most of the way to a promise, with specifically targeting Muslims as those who fall short. He’s saying that the small fairly random subset not getting the promised whatever, is the same as Muslims specifically by design not getting the promised whatever. They aren’t the same. Which is why I clarified with collateral damage, killing some children randomly when attacking a military target isn’t the same thing as attacking a school o purpose. It’s not hypocrisy to find a difference between the two, wouldn’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/6 "2016-01-09T05:33:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s not hypocrisy to find a difference between the two, wouldn’t you agree? Of course it’s not hypocrisy. Has someone accused you of hypocrisy? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/7 "2016-01-09T05:33:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A failure to communicate can often lead to vociferous and angry agreement. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT!!1!1?!?!!? If I don’t write this line, the board will change the allcaps back. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/8 "2016-01-09T06:08:08Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Of course it’s not hypocrisy. Has someone accused you of hypocrisy? That would be you. Hypocrisy is behavior that is not in comport with stated positions, right? You claim that I state one thing, and cut out exceptions when I find it expedient. That’s pretty close to hypocrisy as I see it. As I’ve mentioned several times, what you find issue with is being okay with a promise making it the most of the way (which I clarified that those who are failed by the promise must be randomly affected, not specifically targeted). And yet you find issue when your hypothetical that isn’t like the above situation, isn’t treated the same way. You said: > [@](#): > > You said you’d reply with a “meh” if a lie was true except for a small subset. > > I wanted to see if such a lie would elicit a response other than “meh”. > > Naturally, a response other than “meh” done got elicited fast. and > [@](#): > > That’s a non sequitur: you could just as easily say you backed away, and I constructed an offensive hypothetical. Whether you find the hypothetical offensive is irrelevant to whether you backed away. (Spoiler alert: you backed away fast.) and > [@](#): > > Oh, absolutely: you’ll excuse a lie if you feel like it should be excused, and if pressed will offer a test that sounds plausible – “small subset”, say – and if that leads to a hypothetical you find offensive, you’ll back away from that test as easily as Obama would back away from claiming that If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It. and > [@](#): > > You are, AFAICT, fine with lying about “a small subset” of people – so long as the lie doesn’t target that “small subset” based on their religion. > > By contrast, I of course don’t okay lies built around “small subset” reasoning, or around “based on their religion” reasoning. You breezily said you’d okay lies built on “small subset” reasoning – but when pressed, promptly made a “religion” exception. > > Possibly you’ll carve out a second exception as soon as a second hypothetical comes your way. Possibly you’ll carve out a third exception and a fourth exception just as fast. Possibly you’d have a much easier time if you just didn’t commit yourself to okaying lies in the first place, but that’s neither here nor there. and > [@](#): > > As for your talk about collateral damage, I didn’t copy it because it seemed obvious: you said you’d reply with a “meh” if it was a lie about a “small subset” – but, when faced with a lie that was both about a “small subset” and religion, you suddenly backed away to carve out an exception for religion. Seems like you’re suggesting that I’m acting out of comport with my stated position. Also, I’m not okay with lying. I’m okay with a promise falling short. Which is a different thing, I’d say. \<3 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/9 "2016-01-09T06:36:42Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That would be you. Hypocrisy is behavior that is not in comport with stated positions, right? You claim that I state one thing, and cut out exceptions when I find it expedient. That’s pretty close to hypocrisy as I see it. ::shrugs:: When asked, you clarified your position. I accepted your clarification. > [@](#): > > As I’ve mentioned several times, what you find issue with is being okay with a promise making it the most of the way (which I clarified that those who are failed by the promise must be randomly affected, not specifically targeted). And yet you find issue when your hypothetical that isn’t like the above situation, isn’t treated the same way. What do you mean, I “find issue”? The way you worded things at first was absolutist; once you clarified your position, I simply accepted your clarification. > [@](#): > > Also, I’m not okay with lying. I’m okay with a promise falling short. Which is a different thing, I’d say. Well, not if he knew – at the time he made the promise – that it would ‘fall short’. Or, one supposes, if he _didn’t_ know, but promised _anyway_. And given what he’s said afterward, even he doesn’t seem to be on board with it being an accidental untruth. So I took your “it’s not much of a lie” and “I’d say, ‘meh’” responses literally. Seems like the sort of thing we could’ve discussed civilly there instead of in here, but I guess that’s a matter of taste. Still, isn’t it _possible_ that I’m taking you seriously and treating you fairly while accepting your claims and clarifications at face value? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/10 "2016-01-09T07:15:09Z")
I believe A. \*Well, if you believe A, then you must believe B. \* I don’t believe B. _Then you don’t believe A._ ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/11 "2016-01-09T09:19:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > _Well, if you believe A, then you must believe B._ I think we’ve found the dickish part. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/12 "2016-01-09T13:43:22Z")
Maybe the original Waldo Pepper will come back, and this mendacious impostor will skedaddle. [Well, I can dream, can’t I?] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/13 "2016-01-09T14:14:51Z")
I keep telling you, it’s still _me_. In retrospect, I’ll grudgingly admit was misleading of me to grow this goatee. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/14 "2016-01-09T15:20:37Z")
What was the original issue that provoked this snark exchange? I don’t want to search through the other 3400+ posts in that thread to satisfy my need for context. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/15 "2016-01-09T15:38:16Z")
**BobLibDem** argued that Obama’s famous If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It lie was in fact – well, here, I’ll quote him: _“Was your old plan compliant? If not, you couldn’t keep it. Was your old insurer going out of business? If so, you could hardly keep it, could you? Almost everybody kept their old plans. For a very limited number, they could not keep their plan. Since the statement is true for many more people than it was not, it cannot be said with a straight face to be a lie.”_ I disagree, since by my reckoning it’s a lie regardless of whether it’s true for many more people than not. And, as **Lobohan** puts it in the OP: _It sums up to me saying, I’m okay with a politician promising X and getting it for most except a small subset. Specifically I said I’d give it a, “meh”._ By contrast, I, of course say it’s a lie regardless of how small the subset, or how the subset is chosen. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/16 "2016-01-09T15:44:21Z")
Trump says: If you like your religion, you can keep your religion. But it turns out this is true as long as you’re not a Muslim, only a tiny minority of Americans. But that religion wasn’t really serving your religious needs, so we’ll be upgrading you to a better religion. The key thing is, you’ll still have a religion, it’ll just be a better one. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/17 "2016-01-10T05:16:11Z")
Who among you _truly_ wouldn’t excuse a political lie if it helped sell a policy change you were strongly in favor of? ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/18 "2016-01-10T14:05:09Z")
There seems to be no distinction between “lie” and “mistake” here. A lie is a falsehood intended as a deception. Obama’s error was that he didn’t foresee the inevitable tidal wave of bureaucratic SNAFUs that result with policy change. Ergo, a really embarrassing mistake and shortsightedness on his part, and not an intention to deceive. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/19 "2016-01-10T14:55:27Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > There seems to be no distinction between “lie” and “mistake” here. A lie is a falsehood intended as a deception. Obama’s error was that he didn’t foresee the inevitable tidal wave of bureaucratic SNAFUs that result with policy change. Ergo, a really embarrassing mistake and shortsightedness on his part, and not an intention to deceive. As per [Politifact](http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/), he kept saying it after the bill was signed, and kept sticking to that line even after the HHS regulations came out, during his re-election campaign (which maybe helps explain why it was Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” in 2013, not 2009). So even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama originally just made a promise without knowing if he’d be able to keep it – instead of presumably _knowing_ whether his plan was to simply ban policies that didn’t pass muster – then do you figure there’s _some_ point in that process where that falsehood becomes a lie? (I note in passing that Bush earned a “READ MY LIPS . . . I LIED” newspaper headline back when, because _of course he did._) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563/20 "2016-01-11T14:47:06Z")
I like to read pit threads like this without following the link to the underlying thread first (when the OP is bright enough to provide one) just to see if I can figure out what the argument is from the pit thread posts. Yeah, no fucking way. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-other-waldo-pepper-youre-kind-of-a-lying-prick/742563.md?page=2)