So lies don't exist if you tell them sincerely? :lol: :lol: :lol: You are trying really hard to be LSUCraig here. Since when did you start making personal insults a part of your debate? :dis: Look, you are just repeating yourself again and trying to get in the last post in your usual fashion. Fine. I already posted the dictionary definition and you simply ignore that among the definitions of a lie is "an untrue statement". You may notice that sincerity is not noted as factor to be considered. So get in your last post, repeat yourself again, and then read the dictionary again, I have no further word on the subject.
Well, Jump on the bandwagon, amigo. It's a lot easier to call somebody names than to actually try to debate the issues. If you follow FSA discourse much, you might notice that I tend to be a devils advocate for the unpopular opinions on this very conservative forum (and I definitely pull martin's chain when he tries to be pompous). Otherwise there is little discussion to be had here, except for a neo-con back-slapping party. You are entitled to your opinion if you think I'm a fool . . . but you are mistaken. I'm not a sheep blindly following the leader. I have opinions that I'm not shy about discussing. I don't care a whit if they don't happen to be mainstream. Libby is charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to a Grand Jury, and lying to investigators. The charges will not be dropped and Libby will have a tough time winning the case. Perhaps he will just say he was sincere when he lied to the FBI, therefore by martins rules, he wasn't lying at all. :grin:
ovbiously. you are aware there is a difference between lying and being wrong? it is hard to ignore that you are totally ignoring simple and obvious facts about language. pay attention. read VERY SLOWLY. if bush says "i will find who leaked and punish them", HE CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE. if he gets shot the next day and goes into a coma, he doesnt end up punishing the leak. do you understand how that isnt lying, because a statement of intent is true or untrue AT THE TIME IT IS STATED. it doesnt matter what happens later. if you say you intend to do something, you are speaking about your mental state, NOT WHAT WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. statements of intent are not true for perpetuity. bush wasnt saying "i am god, i am omnipotent, i know the future, and i have seen that i found the leak and punished him". if he said that, he would be lying. but in reality, he basically said "(my intent is that) i will punish the leak (barring any unforeseen circumstances, of course humans realize that the future contains infinite possibilities)" . the parts in parentheses only need to be stated if you are dealing with fools. you apparently are too lazy or weak-minded to understand that when i make a statement about future events, i can only make an appraisal of my current intentions. if i say i like mashed potatoes, but years later i change my mind, that doesnt mean i was lying when i said it. holy christ i cant believe i have to type something so simple. by your stupid definition, if i say i will serve pancakes for breakfast, but later i realize that i actually do not have the ingredients, i am a liar. but i am not, because i fully honestly intended to make pancakes. again, this is embrassing to both of us that this needs to be explained. this is a conversation that should never be necessary when all parties involved are adults who speak english. futhermore, you do not understand the what the definition means in terms of the difference between a lie and actually lying. for instance if i say "the world is flat" that statement is a lie (and untrue statement by your definition), but the person delivering is not. i do not believe that statement and do not intend for it to be believed. so i am not lying, because lying involves intent to decieve, not the mere stating of untrue statements. there is a difference between a lie and lying. telling a lie as truth is lying. your simple definition of a lie as an untrue statement is not relevant. a liar is a person who delivers lies as truth. of course that is beside the point, because statements about the future action are necessarily speculative and are actually statements of intent. "The noun lying has one meaning: Meaning #1: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth"
we understand that the majority opinion is conservative here, and you make an effort to take the other side. however, there are times when you refuse to accept that the sheep here are right in spite of themselves, and you refuse to honestly appraise the situation and lose your credibility. i think i can speak for many here when i say that you have strained your credibility to the point where your opinions just generally are not respected on certain topics. it is possible to have an opposing view and still be in touch with reality, just disagree about a principle or whatever. but there is also intellectual dishonesty, and it appears you have happily crossed that line.
Actually it has three, did you forget? 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
You speak only for yourself, as do us all. And you in particular join me, as do many others, in having opinions that are not generally respected on certain topics. Sticks and stones, man. With 14,408 rep points, I ain't terribly concerned about being disrespected around here.
again, you are telling me the definition of a lie. two differnet words here. read closely. a lie can be an untrue statement. like "the world is flat". a noun. lying is a different, word, a verb (edit: technically "lying" is a "present participle" a sort of present tense verbal adjective) the act of delivering a lie as truth. thats why i said about the definition of "lying" see, when words are not spelled the same, and have differnt meaning, you cannot pretend they are the same word and apply meanings interchangeably. this is a concept i hoped you could accept, even if you really really want bush to be lying. get it?
the difference is people believe i am sincere. i am not ignoring reality for the sake of my arguments. you are a perfectly reasonable person when discussing most topics. but often your political biases as well as your lack of understanding backed with poor research (misunderstanding of definitions in this case, at other times telling me that coffee can be superheated, because you researched water, not realizing that water only superheats in the absense of nucleation, as well as the time you told me seagate was a japanese company) lead to really terrible conclusions. drc40 said it well
Red, why jump on a band wagon that is pretty much parked? Even Lou Dobbs called this Plame-Wilson conspiracy theory a sham. While Libby may or may not be found guilty, a few things are painfully obvious. There was no consipiricy from the white house, nobody orchastrated a smear campaign against Wilson by revealing his wifes identity and Plame, along with Wilson, have proven to be charlatons.
Oh boy, 14,408 rep points. Are you 8 years old? Those rep points mean what? You need to grow up.....but since you are grown, I'll just feel sorry for you while you continue to look stupid.
