Tone (1 Viewer)

[kal-el]

Is calling someone a liar an insult, or is it correctly identifying their behavior?
Numerous times in these forums, I have called people that spit out false information dishonest, or sometimes liars. IMO if someone blatanly spouts off false claims, and they know they are false, I almost always call them on it. The definition of a lie is:

Lie (noun)
1.a false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give the wrong impression

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie

 

[Caine]

Is calling someone a liar an insult, or is it correctly identifying their behavior?
Numerous times in these forums, I have called people that spit out false information dishonest, or sometimes liars. IMO if someone blatanly spouts off false claims, and they know they are false, I almost always call them on it. The definition of a lie is:

Lie (noun)
1.a false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give the wrong impression

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie

The color of this text is Pink.

Its true! Because im a Political Science Student and I say so.

 

[kal-el]

The color of this text is Pink.

Its true! Because im a Political Science Student and I say so.

Hahaha, stop being dishonest. Thanks

 

[cnredd]

LYING - Although there is no official rule against lying, doing so will kill your credibility and respect. If you make a statement that you say is documented, you'd better have the goods to back it up.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=170170&postcount=2

 

[Stace]

Is calling someone a liar an insult, or is it correctly identifying their behavior?
Numerous times in these forums, I have called people that spit out false information dishonest, or sometimes liars. IMO if someone blatanly spouts off false claims, and they know they are false, I almost always call them on it. The definition of a lie is:

Lie (noun)
1.a false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give the wrong impression

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie

If someone KNOWS that what they are posting is false, and they are trying to pass it off as proven fact, then yes, they're a liar, and it's not necessarily an insult, because that's what they're doing.

Now, if they say something that is false (meaning that it can be proven otherwise), but aren't trying to pass the statement off as anything other than their own opinion, it'd be an insult to call them a liar, because they weren't doing it deliberately. And since they didn't intend to deceive anyone, it's not really a lie.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Calling someone a liar is all but pointless.
If the accusation's true, then the liar knows it and doesn't need to be told. If the accusation's true, the audience either knows it already or needs to be convinced. If they know it already, then the accusation is redundant. If the audience doesn't know it already, the case for the accusation will have to be demonstrated anyway.

Demonstrating the case that someone is lying is a more effective technique for making the point that someone is lying. Of course, it takes more work to make a case and present it than it does to merely say, "You're a liar."

But, I never said debate would be easy.

 

[mixedmedia]

When I see someone resorted to calling their opponent a liar, it seems clear they are getting emotionally overwrought and should probably take a little break. This is just talk here after all, the issues are important, yes, but we are not writing policy or running for office. The name calling and emotional outbursts become tiresome in the upper levels.

There's always the basement for that sort of thing.......:doh *whistling nonchalantly*

 

[kal-el]

LYING - Although there is no official rule against lying, doing so will kill your credibility and respect. If you make a statement that you say is documented, you'd better have the goods to back it up.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=170170&postcount=2

Yes, but my question is, is calling someone on their blatant falsehoods either dishonest, or a liar, attacking someone? I would think in most cases, it just is describing their characteristics, especially if they don't back up their statements.

 

[kal-el]

If someone KNOWS that what they are posting is false, and they are trying to pass it off as proven fact, then yes, they're a liar, and it's not necessarily an insult, because that's what they're doing.

Yes, in the case that they know what they spit out is false, it is definetly concious lying, and I shouldn't get chastized for it.

Now, if they say something that is false (meaning that it can be proven otherwise), but aren't trying to pass the statement off as anything other than their own opinion, it'd be an insult to call them a liar, because they weren't doing it deliberately. And since they didn't intend to deceive anyone, it's not really a lie.

I see what you are saying here, but what if they actually believe the lie is true, and pass it off as fact. Is that considered belittleing them calling them such?

 

[Stace]

Yes, in the case that they know what they spit out is false, it is definetly concious lying, and I shouldn't get chastized for it.

No, you shouldn't.

I see what you are saying here, but what if they actually believe the lie is true, and pass it off as fact. Is that considered belittleing them calling them such?

If they actually believe what they are saying, it's simply a matter of pointing them in the right direction of the actual truth. If they're trying to pass it off as fact, ask for a source.....Nine times out of ten, they won't be able to give you one. And at that point, I'd just tell them they're wrong, and point them to a source that proves they're wrong, and then go about my merry way. :mrgreen:

 

[kal-el]

If they actually believe what they are saying, it's simply a matter of pointing them in the right direction of the actual truth. If they're trying to pass it off as fact, ask for a source.....Nine times out of ten, they won't be able to give you one. And at that point, I'd just tell them they're wrong, and point them to a source that proves they're wrong, and then go about my merry way. :mrgreen:

So, if someone makes an asinine, wild, claim, you're saying I should first ask for proof, gotcha. But if they cannot provide proof, I'll be sure to call them a liar.:2razz:

 

[Caine]

So, if someone makes an asinine, wild, claim, you're saying I should first ask for proof, gotcha. But if they cannot provide proof, I'll be sure to call them a liar.:2razz:

I prefer to tell them they are talking out of thier ass.

 

[Stace]

So, if someone makes an asinine, wild, claim, you're saying I should first ask for proof, gotcha. But if they cannot provide proof, I'll be sure to call them a liar.:2razz:

You do whatever you want...that's just the way I work. I like watching people squirm when they can't find sources to back up their claims :doh

 

[cnredd]

You do whatever you want...that's just the way I work. I like watching people squirm when they can't find sources to back up their claims :doh

What's even worse sometimes?...When they DO find sources...

Some Op-Ed piece from Igotmynoseupmypartysass.com

One thing that I find worse than actual lying is the infamous "lie of omission"...

Taking things out of context or outright removing certain text deliberately is the ultimate is skullduggery...

I'll give an example...

Let's say there is a video of someone asking me, "Do you hate your neighbors"?...

My full reply - "Yeah...I hate them...I hate then so much that I spent the day helping them chop down a tree and then let them borrow my SUV to remove it"...

Obviously, the second sentence points out the sarcasm of the first sentence...

But what happens if the video gets spliced in the middle of my answer?...

"Do you hate your neighbors"?...

"Yeah...I hate them"...(cut)

See the difference?...

Now here's the douchebag defense...

Did anyone "lie"?...Nope...

Was anything that we saw on the tape doctored?...Nope...

Were they the actual words that came out of your mouth?....Yup...

So it MUST be the truth!...

Removing the full answer gives the viewer exactly the opposite position I original mentioned...Thus, the lie of omission...

Here's another example brought to you by the King of the Lie of Omission a la Fahrenheit 9/11...

Condi Rice's quote chopped into little bits to make you think a certain way...

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

Now take a gander at what was NOT in the film...The whole quote...

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."

The beginning of the second sentence points out that you should NOT take the first sentence ver batum and literally...

But Mr. Lie of Omission doesn't want any of the fine viewers to know that...


BTW - This example was just that...an example...

Let's not start off a debate on Mr. KrispyKreme...That's another thread altogether...

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yes, but my question is, is calling someone on their blatant falsehoods either dishonest, or a liar, attacking someone?

It depends.
If you make the effort to demonstrate and back up your claim that someone is using "blatant falsehoods" or is being "dishonest, or a liar," then it'd be harder to find fault w/ calling someone a liar.
If all that's done is little more than saying, "You're a liar," then it's easier to see the tack as little more than mere name calling.

However, context and common sense are also arbiters in the assessment of what's w/in and w/o the bounds of acceptable DP conduct.

I would think in most cases, it just is describing their characteristics, especially if they don't back up their statements.

It'd be just noise if you didn't back up your statement [that the other person is a liar].