IT is a very popular perjorative particularly during political seasons,


but one that I am hesitant about using because semantics and language are of interest to me and at the crux of the noun 'lie' is an INTENT to deceive

LIAR,, is a word often used to besmirch character and imply a deceptive nature,,,,,when such intent is much harder to prove than the accuracy of the statement


in fact, lie detectors monitor , in a way, the bodys likely reaction when TRYING to deceive


that means that I can state something untrue , but if I believe it,, the machine will detect no 'lie'

I can also state something true, but if I believe it untrue when I say it,, the machine will detect a 'lie'



I believe people can be mistaken and get tagged with this perjorative much too quickly


I am more suspicious of 'deceivers', than 'liars',, because too often that liar is deemed so merely on if their information was true, and not on their intent





perhaps one day the common 'liar' attack will be replaced with a more relevant 'deceiver' attack that has come after more verification than just whether something was factually accurate or not


......I do believe still that we all 'lie', but we dont all intend to deceive,,,,

In order for one to lie, one has to know that what one is saying isn't true.

If one believes what one is saying, then one is not lying. One may be mistaken, but one is not lying.

I agree, and many times the impeachment of 'liar' is preferred over 'mistaken',, and little attempt is made to consider whether the former is actually the latter,,,

To some it is a greater insult to be told they are wrong than to be told they are lying

You called.............

That's also part of the basic dictionary definition of "lie."
An intent to deceive.

So I don't really understand:

If we lie...if that specific term can be used for what someone does...there is an intent to deceive.

At best you can say "I do believe still that we all 'lie', but we try to lie in a way where the positive benefits far outweigh the negative consequences, and hope intentions and context matter."
e.g. push up bras, makeup, head shaving to hide baldness, or not telling your alzheimers suffering husband you're sleeping with another guy once a month, or tell your girlfriend her cat's fine when she calls during her trip so she can enjoy it, even though the cat died and you'll tell her when she gets back.

There is always the intent to deceive, that doesn't mean that is the only intent motivating someone to lie.
People can intend to deceive while also intending to protect.
People aren't all or nothing, deception or truth absolute or consideration, even though a lot of people try to force the world into that "for us or against us, tell the absolute objective truth or you're lying" worldview.


It wouldn't matter.
An attack is an attack.
The point is to harm someone as much as possible.
"Deceiver!" will be used as an attack as soon as it has the same connotations and generate the same associations as "liar!" does.

And then we'll get a thread like "deceiver, blah blah blah, perhaps one day the common 'deceiver' attack will be replaced with a more relevant 'dissembler' attack that has blah blah blah..."

"Liar!" is used because of the emotional response it engenders in others.
Not because anyone has done an etymological study of the terms they are throwing around and decided it's the best fit.

People would switch from "liar!" to "snowshoe!" if it was considered a pejorative.

new technology always show up like some devil......go asking the tokugawa ieyasu.....he know mores about us.........

Many a lie we tell ourselves we are not aware of our intent

Excellent subject for a thread.

Couple of points:

* "lie detectors" might also detect as a lie, a true thing that you are just VERY unhappy about saying out loud.

Because the label "liar" feels so powerful to say, it gets misused. Especially in the heavily politicized world we are in here in the US these days.

So I very much support your cautious approach to dealing with people claiming someone else is a "liar," or has lied, and I'm glad that anyone is more thoughtful about using the label.

* I think there is an important difference between noting that someone has LIED, and declaring them to BE A LIAR. As has been said here, almost everyone lies, to one degree or another, and many people lie in little ways almost constantly. If you get picky about it, if you say "thank you" to someone who you feel no gratitude towards, you are technically lying.

And declaring someone to BE A LIAR has become a common manipulative trick, and needs to be watched for. Once someone gets you to accept that someone IS A LIAR, they can then declare all the TRUE statements the person makes to be lies as well, and thereby use someone else's lies, to cover the fact that THEY are lying like crazy.

Lying is deception and deception is lying. Deception or deceiving just sounds nicer.

BTW Lie Detectors are not 100% accurate. I can tell you multiple ways to beat a polygraph right now.

Just like the Wicklander and Reid methods I use on a daily basis aren't always 100%.

I would agree that lying is deceiving, my point is that the word today is used to mean saying something that is not true or that is incorrect


there is another word for that which is MISTAKEN, which is doing the above without INTENDING to deceive and merely because the speaker is misinformed themself


today, for example, a person could be asked what year they graduated and unintentionally give the wrong year(due to poor memory) and the 'FACTS' would uncover that the year is incorrect,,,,people would condemn that as the person being a LIAR,,,or intentionally deceiving when they were merely mistaken themselves,,,

its unfortunately not ok to have any weaknesses, need any help, or admit we dont know or remember things,, so people fumble to have an answer,, even if they dont really know or remember,,,,and its a shame because if they remember wrong or answer incorrectly,, the branding begins immediately

Bravo.

Given the two facts above
What criteria would you suggest for knowing some one is guilty of withholding information that is worth side stepping their human rights to extract the information?
Wrong thread

What is a false witness?

they need no Charlie......as the alpha had quite.