Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:57 am
by The Laughing Man
I can't say I agree 100%, --A, but as a rule I will and do.
Prebe, you look great! That purse, however, doesn't really go well with that outfit. I'd suggest something sleeker, and less contrasting. A pale yellow might look nice, or pink, maybe a crisp gray or black to be understated and more professional.
A preoccupation with the lies, however, can blind us to the truths
A preoccupation with the Santa Claus, however, can blind us to the Christ
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:59 am
by Prebe
::Scream::
It was meant as a 3rd person example The Esmer. But thanks. I have thought about the purse to be honest.
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:03 am
by The Laughing Man
oooo, new one, eh? nice, but....
(Honey, does my toe look fat?)
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:05 am
by Prebe
To avoid further confusion, I have chosen a new avatar.
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:18 am
by The Laughing Man
that was a good example, btw....a question asked with an expected? lie for an answer. A woman/man knows if he/she is fat, based on physical standards, and also knows if they are attractive based on societal standards, altho it does differ with the individual. Societal standards of physical attractiveness, and relationships in general these days tho are totally based on lies it seems....
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:21 am
by Prebe
Get some sleep The Esmer
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:20 pm
by ur-bane
But is that a lie designed to find the truth? It is more a lie to protect someone's feelings--the type of protection Avatar was talking about.
What would a real world example of lying to find the truth be? Police interrogations?
"Your buddy just confessed. He said that you did it with him!"
Is that OK even if the buddy didn't say anything?
Is that type of intimidating lie acceptable?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:10 am
by Avatar
Interesting question Ur-Bane. It's easy to see the justification...the legality I'm not sure of...and even the morality is unclear.
If it helps you prevent harm to others, does that make it all right?
--A
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:32 am
by Prebe
Lies made Baby Jesus cry!
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:39 am
by Avatar
Not exactly the answer I was looking for.
--A
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:44 am
by Prebe
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:59 am
by ur-bane
I don't know Av. I've seen studies of police interrogation tactics that say that because of the way some police interrogations are carried out, people have confessed to crimes that they did not commit.
In other words, the lies did not reveal the truth.
People just wanted the abusive interrogations to stop, and therefore told the police what they wanted to hear.
But without the abusive intimidation, is the telling of a lie a bad thing? Without creating an atmosphere of dominance and certainty with a lie or two, will the truth be found at all?
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:58 pm
by Avatar
Well, that is, and always has been, the exact problem with torture, let alone "abusive" or "intimidating" interrogation.
However, the justification is exactly as we have suggested...it's all right, because we're preventing a "greater" harm.
Of course, we could argue that, as you say, without such an atmosphere, the truth will never be found.
But does that make it right?
What about the thought that it's better not to sully ourselves, regardless of what might happen? Our hands (consciences) at least will be clean.
It's a fine line. And all depends on most subjective interpretations.
--A
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:26 am
by The Laughing Man
Well, it seems necessity is the determining factor, and you are actually countering a lie, ie "I don't know" with the exact opposite lie, "I know you know". The line is drawn here, eh? 2 wrongs make a right? It's like the "lier" is forcing you to use his own defense against him, like Psuedo-Psycho-Haikido, heh. Jive-Judo.
This seems to be an "inherent" idea it seems, as in "having always been there", that we justify "crime" to fight "crime". Machiavelli came in a little late and just expounded on that a little maybe. Isn't that where the "justice" in "justified" comes from? A "defensable" action to counter act an "in-defensable" action, although "defensable" only applies to the laws that "justify" it?
THAT TO USE DECEIT IN THE MANAGING OF A WAR IS A GLORIOUS THING
Although to use deceit in every action is detestable, none the less in the managing of a war it is a laudable and glorious thing; and that man is equally lauded who overcomes the enemy by deceit, as is he who overcomes them by force. And this is seen by the judgment which those men make who write biographies of great men, and who praise Hannibal and others who have been very notable in such ways of proceeding. Of which so many examples have been cited that I will not repeat any. I mention only this, that I do intend that that deceit is glorious which makes you break your trust and treaties that you made; for although it sometimes acquires a State and a Kingdom for you, as has been discussed above, will never acquire them for you gloriously. But I speak of that deceit which is employed against that enemy who distrusts you, and in which properly consists the managing of a war; as was that of Hannibal when he feigned flight on the lake of Perugia in order to close in the Consul and the Roman army; and when to escape from the hands of Fabius Maximus he fired (the fagots on) the horns of his cattle.
DISCOURSES OF NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI
ON THE FIRST TEN (BOOKS) OF TITUS LIVIUS
TO ZANOBI BUONDELMONTI AND COSIMO RUCELLAI
www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy3.htm#3:40
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:01 am
by Avatar
Sun Tzu wrote:Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abroad, and men will drop out exhausted.
Opposing forces may face each other for years, striving for the victory which may be decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy's condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver is the height of stupidity.
One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his cause, no master of victory. Thus, what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.
Of course, he was talking about spies, but the principle is certainly one that has been around for probably as long as we've been human.
It depends how far we're taking this really I suppose. If we're talking about interrogation, I don't think lying to your subject is that high up the scale of wrongdoing. But that doesn't mean we should be toruturing people, does it?
--A
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:32 am
by The Laughing Man
It's the torturing to discover that truth which is unknown which is "more wrong", in other words doing it to "see what he knows". If we know for an undeniable fact that he knows information regarding a "clear and present danger", and the info can prevent or meet that danger, then I will say that is justifiable, but still ultimately wrong, for it is a solution of violence as the only alternative, where other alternatives are not considered.