Consider that a 'lie detector' test actually measures the bodys reaction when one speaks something THEY KNOW to be true, vs something THEY KNOW to be false

it doesnt actually measure whether the statements ARE TRUE or ARE FALSE

for example, if a person is told all their lives that Santa brings them gifts, and they are asked if santa brings them gifts, a yes would register as true(non deceptive) and a no would register as a 'lie' (deceptive)


now, another person who knows santa doesnt bring gifts, giving the same answers, would be deemed as deceptive and non deceptive respectfully

so, the same answer from one person can be a 'lie'(Deceptive) and from another can be 'true) (non deceptive) regardless of the veracity of the statement itself


I find it interesting how often people assign the negative label of 'liar' to others without knowing anything about what their experience or belief was,,,,,,,



I think its much more revealing and fair to call people out for being 'deceptive',, but after we have evidence that there is actually the INTENT to deceive or the knowledge aforehand that is contrary to the statements presented by that person,,,


,,,what say you? should everyone be equally assigned the 'liar' label regardless of whether or not THEY believe what they are saying?

If they believe a falsehood, the only alternative is to label them uninformed, mishinformed or ignorant, and there are plenty of Americans who fall in that category.

You can't handle the truth!

agreed


I think the MAJORITY of times that its a result of misinformation , something we have an overabundance of in the instant information age,,,

Using your example,

Should we call the people who firmly believe that Santa brought them gifts, liars? I believe we must. To not do so, would in my opinion perpetuate the lie.

no, to label them helps nothing, to INFORM them does,,,

to label them perpetuates bigotry against them and preconceived ideas about their character,,,

and often backfires to just set them more firmly in their beliefs out of the necessity to defend them,,

I agree calling them a liar is a bit strong but what is our priority? Educating or preventing the spread of an untruth?

A lie is a lie, even if a person believes it to be true it does not change, if it is a lie to begin with it is still a lie.

I understand your comments but I am interested in truth, and would refute the lie, which means calling them a liar.

Educating them to the truth is another course of action, which may or may not be successful, in my opinion.

calling them a liar makes it about refuting them, not the lie

at least in my opinion

once they speak an untruth, calling names doesnt prevent the lie from being 'spread'

but informing them of the truth gives them the opportunity to decide not to spread it further,,,,

Is that why my pants are always on fire? LOL

haaaa, wouldnt that be something?

but I wouldnt want people burning just for being misinformed

it would be cool if they would smolder a little anytime they lied,,give them time to correct themself, and it would be a much quieter world,,,lol

Amen to that!!

Nah,

It is the intent people have that I tend to look at, really life is built around lies and white lies, after all don't we let our leaders, the people who run our country set the example to us and our children that it's ok to lie and make false promises to get what you want.

I have issue with the whole concept of a political 'promise'

in the US the government is made of the congress (100 in senate and 435 in the house) and the president (1)

Thats 536 PEOPLE

of which the MAJORITY must be in agreement

therefore its impossible for any ONE to promise any political goal, because noone can promise the coopoeration of others


we can only 'promise' what WE intend to do,,, like going to grandmoms for dinner

and even then , unforseen circumstances can change even the most sincere intention, like getting in a car accident on the way to grandmothers may keep me from showing up

,, yet, in the political arena, I would be accused of LYING regardless of the accident,,,,

Politicians in the UK never honour all their pre-election promises, giving a variety of excuses, and that is exactly what they are, excuses. If they put in their manifesto they will do something, they should do it. The failure to adhere to their election manifesto promises occurs so often it is embarrassing, and it is no surprise that we feel we are being told lies, what else should we call them? In the UK, when a party wins an election they have the power to carry out what they promise to do.

How does calling someone a liar perpetuate bigotry against them?

we can keep calling them liars

or they can change the political landscape to stop saying 'I promise' over things that arent even PREDOMINATELY under their personal control (although I rarely if ever have personally heard a politician say they 'promise')

and we can change our perception of every political goal being a 'promise',, a GOAL is not a PROMISE


and we can better understand that, IN THE US, the GOVERNMENT is a body of 536 people, and not just 1.

on the national, public, and/or political stage it doesnt take much for gossip and labels to follow you throughout life.

once one is labeled a liar the first time, it becomes easier to assert the next time and the next time, until in the public eye it becomes a FACT,, and 'liars' are looked upon negatively

as can be seen in our political discussions,,,,

But isnt that what they are, don't they pretty much have to live a lie, pretending to like people they don't, pretending to care about things just to get a vote, having to act how people want them to and not really showing their true self.
Wouldn't it just be nice to actually know who they were and what their actual opinions where, not just what somebody else has written for them to say.

Consider also that lie detector tests can be largely inaccurate in many instances, such as; being stuck in a small room with a guy dressed like a doctor, coupled with two police officers.

The body has a large range of reactions, many built out of fear of the unknown...I've actually successfully fooled a lie detector test when I was in school and the police introduced it to us in a demonstration, but the cop told me to try and fool it, I even won a candy bar.

Either way, people will call a dog a dog...A cat a cat. So, naturally, if we know they lied, we call a liar a liar. Nothing wrong with that, it is just how some people approach the situation, nothing wrong with giving a liar a fair shake either...Just less common.

and i wonder why they are called "campaign promises"? Obama made quite a few, and very little have been accomplished...