Poll coming in a second, but don’t let that stop you.
When it’s inaccurate on purpose with the intent to deceive?
Now where’s this poll?
As ramel stated. A deliberate falsehood with the intent to decieve or conceal.
ie. “Poll coming in a second.”
You are confusing i.e. – meaning id est, “that is”-- with e.g – meaning exempli gratia, “for example.”
I blame your parents. This wouldn’t have happened if you’d gone to a good Catholic school.
Liar.
Your first few options come down to what I think are the basic types of lies – Lies of commission and lies of omission.
In my opinion aiming to deceive while not lying is - not lying. People who do not pay attention deserve what they get.
For example:
“Price reduced by up to 50 %” when the price is reduced by 0 % - not a lie.
“I finished the race in second place, while he only came in second but last” when there were two participants in the race - not a lie.
I went for the narrow definition of “lie”, which means it is possible to be extremely dishonest and misleading without ever “telling a lie” per se. (I know at least one person who seems to do this as a hobby… they never lie, but they love creating false impressions in people’s minds. It’s like, for them, the injunction against lying is not so much a moral imperative as it is a sort of game rule.)
I think you’re begging the question.
It’s not a lie if you believe it!
IMO, a lie requires a deliberate falsehood. Having little to do with what the definition of ‘is’ is.
To me, A lie would be: " Any statement that is objectively untrue that is presented as fact without qualification of uncertainty. Regardless of the opinion, or intent, (but particularly in the case of intent to deceive) of the writer or speaker."
Did I miss the joke? “Poll coming in a second” was offered for example.
One of the things that bugs me about lies is when people hold that we must know what is in the hearts of the liar in order to call them a liar. There was a political campaign recently when one campaign kept repeating things that were demonstrably false. Most people felt that made them liars, but some trumped up the argument that “saying something false isn’t a lie just because it’s false, they have to have meant to deceive.” Therefore, we couldn’t call them a liar and were being histrionic.
I think that’s a good policy in say, a marriage. Before you call your spouse a liar you should know they were trying to deceive you. But in many cases, I think we should be allowed to reasonably assume people are liars. Like if a public figure repeatedly states something that is false, could easily have been checked, has been debunked repeatedly by the media and, if true, would have benefited them. There’s no need to say “well we’re not sure he had deception in his heart.” in those cases.
When whoever-it-was made that remark, the poll wasn’t up yet, because it took me a little while to do it. Thus I took it as a suspcious remark about the poll – i.e., a suggestion that I might not actually put the poll up. This was reasonable given my last poll, which lacked any actual options.
What in the name of the Goddess is that supposed to mean?
When a statement is meant to deceive.
My wife has called me a liar when I said I would quit smoking but then started again due to my weak will. I was meant it when I said it, it may be a broken promise but it was not a lie!!!
It means any statement later shown to be untrue is a lie unless the liar admitted they weren’t sure when they said it. If you say something untrue but you admitted at the time you weren’t sure, that’s not a lie. But if you don’t qualify yourself as uncertain and later turn out to be wrong you’re a liar. If you were trying to deceive people it’s even worse but it’s not necessary.
That’s what Acid Lamp is saying anyway.
What if you were certain, or as certain as you can be without having to caveat every statement you make, but are later shown to be wrong?
It has to be intentionally untrue.
The current Condem politicians have been telling a remarkable number of barefaced lies. Usually politicians twist the facts and say something that you can just about concede is true in some way or other, but they’re not even bothering with that.
For example, (i.e…) Nick Clegg said ‘the recent cuts affect richest people the most. That is indisputable.’ This was followed by half a dozen pundits on the news saying variations of ‘there is no possible interpretation whereby this is true in any way whatsoever, either proportionately or absolutely, and there is no way that Nick Clegg can be unaware of this.’ They all looked a little bewildered at having to argue against a statement that has no arguments in its favour.
Stop typing faster than me.
Yeah that is a bit confusing.
Basically, you are lying if you present something that is false as truth, regardless of whether you meant to or not, or if your opinion differs from reality. You can get out of this though by qualifying your statement.
Lie : “Iguanas suck the blood of babies in the night.” This is just wrong, regardless of cultural tradition etc. The person may not be intending to deceive but is doing so anyway by perpetuating ignorance.
not a lie : " My uncle always said that Iguanas suck the blood of babies in the night". The statement is still presented, even as a fact, but qualified to allow for the possibility of being mistaken.