- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I think you've just described Fox News "We Report, You Decide"Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?
When I say "lying by omission", I mean that a person makes a statement or claim about something knowing full well that they are omitting an important piece of information that might cause the listener or reader to think less favorably about the issue.
There is usually some level of assumption, sure, but that does not automatically mean the 'receiver' is lying to themselves. Made up example...It's not even close to being as bad. An outright lie involves the speaker conveying false information, whereas a "lie of omission" involves the receiver lying to themselves by way of assumption.
In one instance, th3 speaker is actively doing something dishonest. In the other, the receiver is actively doing something stupid. The blame in the latter case falls on the receiver.
It's not even close to being as bad. An outright lie involves the speaker conveying false information, whereas a "lie of omission" involves the receiver lying to themselves by way of assumption.
In one instance, th3 speaker is actively doing something dishonest. In the other, the receiver is actively doing something stupid. The blame in the latter case falls on the receiver.
Politician: You citizens are safer because I implemented stronger criminal protections and got common thugs off the streets. (Yay me!) [Looks and sounds good.]
Untold truth: I was able to do it by increasing your taxes three-fold and suspending the Constitution. [Oh, wait, maybe it's not so good.]
There is usually some level of assumption, sure, but that does not automatically mean the 'receiver' is lying to themselves. Made up example...
Politician: You citizens are safer because I implemented stronger criminal protections and got common thugs off the streets. (Yay me!) [Looks and sounds good.]
Untold truth: I was able to do it by increasing your taxes three-fold and suspending the Constitution. [Oh, wait, maybe it's not so good.]
What have you done with Tucker???? Let me see if I understand what you've said. If someone omits a pertinent factoid, the blame lies on the listener. Huh?? Tucker!!! Change your password!!!
Question Where were you last night?
Answer At home (but leave out the 3 hours spent at the strip club) that would be a lie and just as bad as an actual lie
You misunderstood. The "Yay me!" was intended to be the politician saying it to themself. IOW: "Praise me, people, for how great I am."The self-deception is right there in your post. As soon as the receiver said "yay" and assumed that it looked and sounded good they lied to themselves because they did not review all of the facts before developing their opinion. It is not the speaker's job to alleviate the ignorance of the receiver so that teh receiver can make an informed decision, it is the receiver's job to do this.
The receiver's part has nothing to do with it. The speaker, and the relative importance of the information omitted, is the issue.Speakers are not required to present all of the facts (if they were, we'd all be guilty of lying constantly, because such a requirement would be impossible).
Receivers who assume that all of the facts have been presented are at fault for their own assumptions. It is their job to alleviate their own ignorance. It is not the speaker's job.
Will dishonest speakers take advantage of the stupid assumptions of others? Of course they will, they are dishonest.
But that does not alleviate the receiver of their complicity in their own self-deception.
That would be an actual lie, not a lie of omission, since the statement, "the speaker was not at home last night" is a true statement.
If the question was "What did you do last night", saying "I walked around for a bit and I watched some TV as well" while leaving out the portion about the strip club would be a lie of omission.
You misunderstood. The "Yay me!" was intended to be the politician saying it to themself. IOW: "Praise me, people, for how great I am."
The statement "at home" would be true, he was at home for some of the time, not just all of the time.
No. By your own criteria, the receiver should have presumed there was missing information, and the onus is on them.A lie of omission would be something like "This car is serviced regularly" while failing to say "And on its last servicing, we discovered about a million things wrong with it". The statement has to be 100% true while leaving out some fact that would change teh person's perception of said statement. Your example is not 100% true because it is a lie.
No. By your own criteria, the receiver should have presumed there was missing information, and the onus is on them.
Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?
When I say "lying by omission", I mean that a person makes a statement or claim about something knowing full well that they are omitting an important piece of information that might cause the listener or reader to think less favorably about the issue.
It does. Thanks.I've been rethinking what I've said in this thread and I realized how I might be coming across is not exactly what I'm trying to say.
I'm saying that, in the dichotomy of the thread question, an outright lie is worse than a lie of omission because a lie of omission must be coupled with an assumption by the receiver in order for it to be deceptive. There must be some degree of self-deception involved in a lie of omission, while there is no self-deception when someone is lied to outright.
That does not excuse the person who is taking advantage of the listener's assumptions, though. It just makes it a lesser form of dishonesty than an outright lie would be.
That's also just a comparison of the two forms of dishonesty in general. Comparing specific lies of each sort to each other can lead to different results (lying to the wife by saying I was at my friends house because I didn't want to tell her I was at the mall buying her a surprise gift for her birthday would not be as bad as saying "I was at work" omitting the fact that, while I was at work, I was banging my secretary).
And there are certain specific instances where a person is under a legal obligation to divulge all of the facts of a situation and in such instances, a lie of omission is essentially the same as an outright lie.
I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.
It does. Thanks.
What I highlighted in red was why I provided the option in the poll about "little white lies", because I agree there are instances where it's not a big deal.
Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?
When I say "lying by omission", I mean that a person makes a statement or claim about something knowing full well that they are omitting an important piece of information that might cause the listener or reader to think less favorably about the issue.
Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?
When I say "lying by omission", I mean that a person makes a statement or claim about something knowing full well that they are omitting an important piece of information that might cause the listener or reader to think less favorably about the issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?