No Lies

[tecoyah]

I can fully remember Bill Clinton trying to get out of his dirty little sex scandal through attempting to twist language in such a way that his statements under oath were less damning.....in other words, I knew he was lying to the court. Today I watched Condi Rice simply avoid answering any question concerning secret military prisons, and make a statement that the US does not mistreat prisoners. I also remember the President refusing to testify under oath to the 911 commission.

I am forced into a conclusion that is disturbing to say the least:

If someone has no problem defending themselves when they are obviously telling the truth, and had Data to back it up, what does it mean when they refuse to answer on another issue. I am of the opinion that there is something to hide, and denial of the questions is an attempt to protect themselves from future action by the courts as things come to light.

My question is simple....At what point does silence and misdirection, Become a Lie?

 

[ngdawg]

Silence in and of itself can't be a lie. It's merely the holding back of any honesty.
Misdirection can be a lie if it's deliberate, ie; "I did not have sex with that woman". No, but you didn't turn down BJ's either nor supposedly used a cigar in place of a penis. So, no intercourse (sex) occurred.
Lies are what are told when the truth is damaging. Don't speak, no damage.
Clinton misdirected, Nixon lied, Kennedy took his secrets to the grave....history tells us Nixon was the worst of the lot, but was he really? Or was he misdirected by his staff? Thereby turning anything he said into a lie?

 

[The Real McCoy]

My question is simple....At what point does silence and misdirection, Become a Lie?

Deffinitely not a simple question...

I guess it has to be determined on a case by case basis.

Michael Moore is a master of misdirection and while he continuously paints very untrue pictures, he never "lies" in his documentaries.

As ngdawg stated, Clinton (another misdirection guru) said "I did not have sex with that woman" which was true (far as I know) but he also said another time "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" which was certainly a lie... unless you don't think oral sex isn't in the realm of "sexual relations."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The term that I use is "not-lie."

A not-lie is a variation of the "negative pregnant". A not-lie is technically correct, that is the denotations of the statement are true, yet the connotations of the statement may not be. The statements are often misleading.

The examples are numerous. Politicians are masters of the not-lie. You have to take them at their word, but only their word.

Politicians do not-lies all the time. It's not exactly truthful, and it's definitely not honest, it's not-lying.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Simon W. Moon
The term that I use is "not-lie."

A not-lie is a variation of the "negative pregnant". A not-lie is technically correct, that is the denotations of the statement are true, yet the connotations of the statement may not be. The statements are often misleading.

The examples are numerous. Politicians are masters of the not-lie. You have to take them at their word, but only their word.

Politicians do not-lies all the time. It's not exactly truthful, and it's definitely not honest, it's not-lying.

The trick is trying to figure out what "word" to take them at.