Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1066774 Posts in 70911 Topics- by 18693 Members - Latest Member: Marvin.neal62
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Recusal, Removal, or Indictment?  (Read 2473 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 17929
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: Mar 08, 2017, 06:27AM »

I think you have to intend to lie for it to be a lie. Otherwise, you're just mistaken or misinformed.
In that case dogmatism and intellectual irresponsibility get a pass--most lies come from those who first convinced themselves of the lie.
 
There's a point at which intellectual negligence is indistinguishable in any way from lying--it's lying all the same, just from a slightly different angle.
 
Lying includes advocating self-deceptions to others and imposing or attempting to impose your own intellectual negligence upon others.
 
Lying is being directly responsible for dishonesty or deception, and again, intellectual irresponsibility and negligence are just applications of dishonesty and deception, and elf-deception counts when it spills over onto the outside world. If you only want to satisfy yourself that you're honest when you're not, you'll be far more inclined to stick with overt or willful intent as a necessary element of lying. If you take honesty seriously you recognize and acknowledge and address the lies behind the end results. That's where it all starts, after all.
 
However, I don't think Jeff Sessions was mistaken or uninformed about his own activities.
Well ... there's also that.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 495

View Profile
« Reply #121 on: Mar 08, 2017, 08:24AM »

Do you realize that what you just posted made no sense at all?

There's that ad hominem I predicted.

It makes perfect sense unless you're trolling. 

You can lie unintentionally.  Sessions might not have caught that Franken was asking about all contact with the Russians, and then he didn't correct himself.  That's a lie.

You can lie and not intend to.  Sessions might not have remembered either of his specifically-paid-for meetings with the Russians.  He may have meant "no" when he said "I don't know of anybody that's spoken to the Russians."  But when the tape and the meetings were made public, it was Sessions' responsibility to say, "You know what, I made an error.  I was wrong.  I did meet with Russian officials during the time in question, and I would like to formally amend my testimony for the record." 

He didn't do that.  He made up an excuse.  That makes the statement a lie, plain and simple.

And yes, being willfully ignorant is the same thing as lying.  It's the spreading of dishonesty.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9578

View Profile
« Reply #122 on: Mar 08, 2017, 10:05AM »

I draw the line slightly lower.

An intentional falsehood is of course a lie.

A false statement than could have been known to be false is also a lie, if a reasonable person would have checked.

That's a good point. Saying something without having any particular reason to believe it, or without making any effort to verify if it's true, is still dishonest.

I've noticed there's a sort of ecosystem for spreading these stories, and it's apparently quite efficient. After the lie about Obama wiretapping James Rosen popped up on the forum, I noticed that someone brought it up in every Facebook discussion of the wiretap allegations.

Trump understands this perfectly--it doesn't matter if what he says is true, as long as it's useful. For Trump, and for a lot of his supporters, saying something that's not true seems to be viewed roughly the way an NBA player might view getting away with a goal tend--whatever works, right? So his claim that over 100 Gitmo detainees released by Obama returned to terrorism (in fact, nearly all of them were released by Bush) works nearly as well being false as true: many people will repeat it because they like the way it sounds, or because they don't read or believe the credible sources that debunk it.

The other thing I've noticed is that when people spread these stories, they never seem to appreciate when you point out that they're hoaxes. I would be grateful to be told that something I was saying wasn't actually true, because I'd quit saying it. It's a little embarrassing, like being told your fly's down, but it's better to know. Besides, if a person were genuinely outraged over something, wouldn't they be relieved to learn it wasn't true?

So, yeah, people who spread these 'alternative facts' are doing something very near to lying. Indifference to truth is still dishonesty.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9578

View Profile
« Reply #123 on: Mar 08, 2017, 10:13AM »

For the record, james Rosen's phone records and emails were subpoenaed but he was not wiretapped. From a Fox News interview:

Quote
I have to clarify that I was not wiretapped, my parents were not wiretapped, which is where you place a listening device on someone’s telephone line and you listen to their conversations,” Rosen said. He continued, “What happened to me was that the Attorney General, Eric Holder, under Barack Obama as president secretly designated me a criminal co-conspirator and a flight risk and thereby had a federal judge give the government permission to rifle through all my gmails."
[emphasis added]

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/05/james-rosen-on-being-the-target-of-surveillance-under-the-obama-administration/

I actually agree that the Justice Dept. went a bit overboard on this case, because it seemed to go after the press too hard. But you can object to Holder's behavior without lying about it. The point of the lie is to say, Obama wiretapped someone before, so he probably did it again. It kicks up some useful dust for a person who's more interested in partisanship than accuracy.

There's further dishonesty in making a comparison between the two situations. The Rosen subpoena was pursuant to a legitimate national security concern over leaks that could compromise ongoing operations. The investigation led to several convictions. On the other hand, if a president wiretapped a candidate for political reasons, it would be a crime.

Whaddya wanna bet the the people spreading the fake story on this forum will continue to do so elsewhere, knowing it's untrue?
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7028
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #124 on: Mar 08, 2017, 03:07PM »



You can lie unintentionally.  Sessions might not have caught that Franken was asking about all contact with the Russians, and then he didn't correct himself.  That's a lie.

You can lie and not intend to.  Sessions might not have remembered either of his specifically-paid-for meetings with the Russians.  He may have meant "no" when he said "I don't know of anybody that's spoken to the Russians."  But when the tape and the meetings were made public, it was Sessions' responsibility to say, "You know what, I made an error.  I was wrong.  I did meet with Russian officials during the time in question, and I would like to formally amend my testimony for the record." 

He didn't do that.  He made up an excuse.  That makes the statement a lie, plain and simple.

And yes, being willfully ignorant is the same thing as lying.  It's the spreading of dishonesty.

Knowingly spreading untruths is called 'malicious gossip'.  It can also be called 'slander', or if in print 'libel'.

Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9578

View Profile
« Reply #125 on: Mar 08, 2017, 04:13PM »

Stan, you raise an excellent point.

How often do you hear Trump correct the record?
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: