Awe, I was teasing Debster. :P

This I understand.........But belief is subjective....even if one's belief turns out Untrue....it does not mean we lied.
I now see you're point!!!

Good.

The converse is that a true statement can also be a lie. Thus, all true statements are not necessarily honest, and all honest statements are not necessarily true.

It seems that many think that if one makes a false statement it means that they're lying. That is not necessarily the case.

So, I suppose that this brings us full circle back around to what bushido attempted to show earlier. How can one know(for certain) when another is lying?

Is there any such case?

yes I do, because the truth comes out anyway ....,.then it hurts even more! Then I loose faith in the person who told the Lie in the first place....... that's how.... Perfect Dennie feels!!

So the standard argument against always being truthful/honest is would you lie if there were Nazi's at your door and Jews in your attic?

So, I would suppose that in order to know that another is lying we must first know what it is that they believe in addition to knowing that the testimony in question conflicts with that.

Make sense?

Now, proving that that is the case is another story altogether. I would think that the statements one makes are about the only indication that we have to go by regarding what one believes(well, aside from actions but that is another matter altogether). However, just because one makes conflicting statements does not necessarily mean that they do not believe both, or have somehow changed their mind in between making them. I cannot think of what it would take to prove that another is lying.

I mean it is impossible to absolutely prove any statement.

Astute observation.

This is the reason why it is so important to be careful about the education of the young...

GIGO...

If you feed them hate they will (honestly) hate (and know hate as a truth).

If you feed them good information they will excell.

Unfortunately that also requires mankind to self examine self...

as many within the multitudes (honestly) hate because that is the way they were raised.

Again (but from another) an astute observation.

One must know the difference to choose. (and some choose to be dishonest when they know the difference).

However one can not choose if one does not know the difference.

Everybody lies and anyone who says they don't is a liar!

Joe is most certainly lying...

Perhaps...

Yet if Joe is a man that believes women to be 'unimportant' then Jill has no standing in his 'truth' and so to him is not counted as 'being there'.

You trying to spoil my fun?

Then "yes, of course" was unneccesary. That implies he believes and recognises that she is there.

That argument would only come up if a person insisted that lying is wrong, a sin, or unethical.

I don't believe in "sin." And, lying to save someone's life can't be considered wrong or unethical.

So get the sanctimonious (or religious) rules about lying out of the room, and look at the actual circumstances.

Is there really such a thing as a completely honest person? There might be. A truly logical person, probably sees no reason to lie, and is probably not very good at it. They would not make a good spy or investigator or criminal.

Look at an example. Data on Star Trec. Or Spock. Or Brennen on the series Bones. To them, lying is probably a curiosity and something unfamiliar to them. It certainly is not something they would or could do well or on a daily basis.

It is probably easier to lie to an honest person who does not expect people to lie.

An ignorant or innocent honest child may not know what a lie is. Children will sometimes believe anything you tell them because they don't know what a lie is nor do they have any reason to believe anyone would lie to them.

They quickly learn though. Then they learn to lie.

That's impossible and illogical.

Peter, you are seriously broken dude.

When someone gives you details on a thought experiment it actually goes without saying you do not change the context or situation, but I KNEW someone like you would not understand that as a given. What is worse? What is worse is that even with something that need not be said being said, you still could not follow the instructions.

AND what is even worse than that is that you carry on for pages after being explained how it works.

We can always complicate any thought experiment by adding every possible variable, but the purpose of a thought experiment is to limit the variables to be able to easily answer a question which does not need all of the variables to be answered.

Read any of Einsteins thought experiments, none of them address all possible variables, they are all extremely thin to make it a viable way to address a specific question.

This is all wasted effort on my part, I KNOW you dont care, for you its all about just arguing with the guys you dislike.

Its helpful to quote what you are responding to.

I think so, but it is quite specific. We are at times in a position to know what another knows, from that knowledge at times we can know when someone is lying. Maybe not with complete certainty, I mean anyone can go crazy, but barring some kind of dementia, we can determine if someone we know well is lying.
Exactly