Some stupid fucker is going to reply to your statement and there will be a shitstorm surrounding individual interpretations of diligence. I was just trying to help you out by heading it off at the pass.WTF will need to consult 5 dictionaries
In other words. I was backhandedly fucking with WTF...Originally Posted by boardman
Don't bother, We are too far apart to continue. Neither of us is going to change our minds. As I said, if we can't agree on the definition of a lie everything else is pointless and a waste of time. We need to agree to disagree so that we can maintain a level of civility between us.Can't you tell I love arguing with idiots!
Besides, the boss is still watching me. He keeps asking me why I like arguing with idiots.. I told him he really doesn't know you like I do.
Originally Posted by boardman
WTF will need to consult 5 dictionariesI know damn well not to drag out a dictionary like boardman did and then cherry pick the one definition I agree with. I accept all the definitions olé Webster has.... including the one's you numbnuts agree with. Definitions are not exclusive to only the definition you agree with. I think this is a Tea Party affliction.
but the issue, as always with him, will be his comprehension level Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
I already answered both of those questions. No, if they believed that then they were not lying. So both Clinton and Obama did not lie when they said they did I not have sex with that woman and you can keep your doctor if they believed it at the time. One of the many questions, in this thread, that I asked you but you failed to answer, igonored...whatever was "Clinton did not lie if he believed his story, do you believe his story?" I have said numerous times that I think Bush , Clinton and Obama lied about said subject matter. I give the all the benefit of doubt in regards to knowingly telling said lie(s).Question , if you repeat a lie does it become a falsehood? If not a falsehood, what? What does a lie become if innocently repeated? Or repeated with plausible deniability? How does a lie all of a sudden not become a lie if it is still not true?
You really don't read other posts, you just assume you already know the answer and make your argument based on what you think you know. Not true, I do read posts that I respond to. See I consider what you just said a lie/falsehood. In other words, based on your idiotic argument you are admitting to being a liar. Another lie. At least Zanzibar admits he doesn't read the posts because he already knows I'm going to say.You are like a box of Chocolates... You're proving to be a bigger idiot that Zanzibar. That may or may not be true....depends upon the lens. That takes some work. Tebow, you can't make this shit up.
Look, I tried to give us both an out a few posts back and say "OK, we define a lie differently". We both define lies based on the definition(s) you supplied. I just happen to use all the definitions given. If you look back on this thread you will see that is the truth. Yes but you have been supplying me pretzel gold. Neither one of us are going to budge from our definition of a lie. Without finding common ground on that most important point it makes no sense to proceed further with the rest of this argument. It also makes it extremely difficult to debate someone who continually twists the meanings of words to suit their argument. Now that is a lie. I have done is use the definition you supplied. You chose not to take the out and have repeatedly doubled down on stupid. I have doubled down on your POV. It's like a Jemma moment. You sir, have completely succeeded in baffling me with bullshit. It does not mean you have won it simply means you have out dumbed me. Not an easy task,BTW
Next up, WTF's silly definitions of win and lose? No
My boss told me to get my ass back to work so I'll leave with this...
It's not murder if you didn't intend to kill and it's not a lie if you didn't intend to deceive. Originally Posted by boardman
It's not murder if you didn't intend to kill and it's not a lie if you didn't intend to deceive. Originally Posted by boardmanThe question was , What does the lie turn in to after repeated innocently? If you knowingly told me a lie as fact and knew it to be a lie and I repeated it thinking it to be true...
The question was , What does the lie turn in to after repeated innocently? If you knowingly told me a lie as fact and knew it to be a lie and I repeated it thinking it to be true...for a lie to be a lie, it must start as a lie, it always is a lie if it begins as a lie, but if you are an innocent repeater of a lie you aren't a liar, the originator of the lie is the liar.
What did your lie become once I told it?
for a lie to be a lie, it must start as a lie, it always is a lie if it begins as a lie, but if you are an innocent repeater of a lie you aren't a liar, the originator of the lie is the liar.Really....
in Bush's case, WMD did not start as a lie, it started as an assessment believed by assessors the world over. Therefore it never was a lie. It was merely an incorrect assessment. Therefore no repeating of it was the repeating of a lie, it was an acceptance of and a repeating of a mistaken assessment.
so please don't keep mixing apples and oranges as is your wont. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Really....not reading that but if it did start as a lie, bush didn't lie in any case, for the non originator of a lie to lie, he must repeat the lie knowing it is a lie
Curveball
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
The defector who convinced the White House that Iraq had a secret biological weapons programme has admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war Originally Posted by WTF
for a lie to be a lie, it must start as a lie, it always is a lie if it begins as a lie, but if you are an innocent repeater of a lie you aren't a liar, the originator of the lie is the liar.
. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
not reading that but if it did start as a lie, bush didn't lie in any case, for the non originator of a lie to lie, he must repeat the lie knowing it is a lieIt is always a lie if it starts as a lie but you are not a liar if you are an innocent repeater of a lie...except if the innocent repeater is GWB , then the lie is not a lie. Is that wtf you are trying to sell me?
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords.[23] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of 19 April 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).[24]
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"[22]
"The face is what one goes by, generally," Alice remarked in a thoughtful tone.
"That's just what I complain of," said Humpty Dumpty. "Your face is the same as everybody has—the two eyes,—" (marking their places in the air with his thumb) "nose in the middle, mouth under. It's always the same. Now if you had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance—or the mouth at the top—that would be some help."[25]
Link
Other critical reviews of Through the Looking Glass claim that Humpty Dumpty is nonsensically discussing semantics and pragmatics.
It is always a lie if it starts as a lie but you are not a liar if you are an innocent repeater of a lie...except if the innocent repeater is GWB , then the lie is not a lie. Is that wtf you are trying to sell me?either you cant read or something is going on weird in your head
That is what you and others have twisted yourselves up in to.
No damn wonder boardman wants to quit discussing wtf a lie is!
boardman , please tell nevergivesitathought what a lie , that started off as a lie, turns into when an innocent repeater of a lie repeats said lie. Is it still a lie or does it depend on who the innocent repeater of said lie, is.
Bonus question...What if someone innocently starts a lie, another finds out that it is a lie , yet repeats it with deception, then Bill Clinton innocently repeats it and then GWB innocently repeats it?
Was it not a lie and then a lie, then a lie when Clinton repeated it and not a lie when Bush repeated the same?
either you cant read or something is going on weird in your headLet us try this again..
maybe the craps table has upset you
its impossible to innocently start a lie Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
