The incredible inherent goodness in lying?
Question:
In article <82n12p$4u…@nnrp1.deja.com>, ooba…@my-deja.com wrote: > the most deadly of truths can be a fact, and indeed if > used with malicious intent can cause as much or more > harm than a lie.
Good point. This is also a major reason for professional secret, respect for privacy and so on. Furthermore, one can have a malicious intent when a fact is taken out of the context, so to make it appear under a different light. Truth of a specific statement is only a detail of a more complex picture. — All the best Raffaele <http://www.angelfire.com/mi/raffaele55/> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
In article <82jp1f$2r4_…@news.earthlink.net>, maddo…@earthlink.net (Maddogg) wrote: > Yes, I agree with you on one hand, but make a distinction > on the other hand, between innocent lies told to avoid hurting > someone’s feelings, and lies intended to harm. Innocent lies, > as in telling someone, "no, those pants don’t make your ass > look fat", are part of sensitivity, and compassion, in my own > opinion… while lies told to intentionally harm others, are not > acceptable, and serve no purpose other than to harm… > I concur that the issue is one of intent. > Facts are truth, and stand for themselves, and need no one > to judge them…
However, the most deadly of truths can be a fact, and indeed if used with malicious intent can cause as much or more harm than a lie. while a lie such as, "your hair looks good > in that shade of green", is subjective to one’s judgment, as > to whether or not you are actually doing that person a favor, > by not telling them their hair looks terrible. After all, whether > their hair looks good or not, is very subjective, and may vary > with the beholder…
The most wicked of all are the lies I have told myself. > Thank you for your thoughts… I hope you will feel comfortable > in speaking openly in this group again, as you have done here… > sincerely, > Michael
Thank you for welcoming me 
Trinkets and baubles from oobabie. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <82jh9t$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>, promis…@yahoo.com wrote: > >I have spent a couple of days reading all the posts in this NG. There > >has been a lot said about lying and truthfulness. It has made me > >think, thank you. > >Has anyone considered that, in the right situation, a lie is better > >than a truth. I know of times I would rather have been lied to. And I > >know of times I wish I had of lied. Are we always "set free" by the > >truth, or can we be prisoners of the truth? Sacrificing ourselves at > >the altar of complete and utter honesty at whatever the cost to > >ourselves and others; slaves to a purists vision of honesty. And then > >of course, whose truth is true? For my truth may differ from yours. Who > >judges my truth? > >"Darling your hair is divine." > >Thoughts from oobabie > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > >Before you buy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
In article <944647230.587…@Chaos.es.co.nz>, Harvey wrote: > I tend to agree with you rodeck – particularly on these lines : >> I’m also amazed at how freakin serious people >> get about newsgroups. They claim ownership, cry >> "invasion," rant about cross-posting, send nasties for >> OT posts, play war, or make grandiose exits. >> Anybody who thinks newsgroups are anything more than >> glorified grafitti walls needs to check themselves >> out. If they don’t like somebody, why not just not >> look at their posts? >> (as uv said, ic) > Crossposting should not be such a sin, if it’s innocently > done, or if there are no insults made in the post.
If a post contains insults, these are the real issue and not the crossposting. > Nor the intent there to insult. > It’s not hard to see the difference between > someone trying to hurt someone with comments – > and another not making the effort to try to hurt.
What I’m missing here is how the above be related to the stated agreement with his take from Joe’s message. I see above a sort of praise to mind-reading, which is another typical feature of the "seriousness" that Joe has so neatly criticized. Whatever are the intentions of the poster, those who feel hurt by his/her comments are taking seriously Usenet, aren’t they? BTW, fantasies about plots to take over newsgroups or to declare "ASLmaGEDdon" are extreme (and ludicrous) instance of this seriousness. —- All the best Raffaele <http://www.angelfire.com/mi/raffaele55/> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
I tend to agree with you rodeck – particularly on these lines : >I’m also amazed at how freakin serious people get about newsgroups. They >claim ownership, cry "invasion," rant about cross-posting, send nasties for >OT posts, play war, or make grandiose exits. Anybody who thinks newsgroups >are anything more than glorified grafitti walls needs to check themselves >out. If they don’t like somebody, why not just not look at their posts? >(as uv said, ic)
Crossposting should not be such a sin, if it’s innocently done, or if there are no insults made in the post. Nor the intent there to insult. It’s not hard to see the difference between someone trying to hurt someone with comments – and another not making the effort to try to hurt. Thanks for the comments, I hope you’ll make more… We always need fresh comments here, and more views expressed. Harvey In article <82k4r102…@enews4.newsguy.com>, rod…@netpci.com says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->nOBody, u got the best lines! >the polite fictions that make real-life social >> relations easier. > I’m just not gregarious enough. I’m not motivated enough to even *try* >polite fiction. You ever notice the one, when somebody just got out of the >hospital, and people are all going, "Doesn’t he look good?" U just sit >there aghast! > An extreme example might be a person who does not say >> "how are you?" routinely to work colleagues, for the very good (?) >> reason that their presence at work indicates that they are not unwell, >> and therefore the question is superfluous, and would indicate a >> curiosity that is not felt. >He’s over-analytical. Shouldn’t take "how r u" literally. > Or a person who is unable to conceal sexual >> interest as smoothly as others, and is therefore perceived as >> threatening or socially gauche. >Concealing not too dishonest. Can’t go around saying, "Hey Man, I’m hot 4 >ur wife!" >how can anyone on a NG >> ever know what is true and what is false in all that is said? >Cannot IRL either. That’s why I got trapped in some housewife’s fantasy on >ICQ for 18 months. >I’m also amazed at how freakin serious people get about newsgroups. They >claim ownership, cry "invasion," rant about cross-posting, send nasties for >OT posts, play war, or make grandiose exits. Anybody who thinks newsgroups >are anything more than glorified grafitti walls needs to check themselves >out. If they don’t like somebody, why not just not look at their posts? >(as uv said, ic)
Response:
In article <82k4r102…@enews4.newsguy.com>, "cranky bridge crab" <rod…@netpci.com> wrote: > nOBody, u got the best lines!
He’s always pleasant to read. >> the polite fictions that make real-life social >> relations easier. > I’m just not gregarious enough. > I’m not motivated enough to even *try* polite fiction. > You ever notice the one, when somebody just got out of > the hospital, and people are all going, > "Doesn’t he look good?" U just sit there aghast!
Even more unlikely is when such comments are uttered at a funeral. "He’ll be the most good-looking of all the cemetary." > He’s over-analytical. Shouldn’t take "how r u" literally.
Sometimes this is done, especially when you see one after longtime. However, the subject of some greetings contains a lot of examples of sentences that must defintively not be taken seriously. My parody "HHH" was about hugs. > Concealing not too dishonest. Can’t go around saying, > "Hey Man, I’m hot 4 ur wife!"
*giggle* It starts becoming dishonest when you take the questionable habit to sleep with her. > I’m also amazed at how freakin serious people get > about newsgroups.
Interesting issue. I must admit to be a bit guilty of it myself, even if a bit more netxperience helped me out. Presently, I find it extremely funny! > They claim ownership, cry "invasion," rant about > cross-posting, send nasties for OT posts, play war, > or make grandiose exits.
What about plots to take over this group? I had one in the past (OB was one of my most faithful groupies). You will soon be exposed as a memeber of the raff-mob if you don’t revile me for my true character (or lack thereof). > Anybody who thinks newsgroups are anything more > than glorified grafitti walls needs to check themselves > out. If they don’t like somebody, why not just not > look at their posts? > (as uv said, ic)
This should be explained to a couple of obnoxious netcops here. They try to get rid of unwanted "invaders", but all the bites they’ll get is that of fleas on their stupid butts. *giggle* How are you? Hugs! Smiles! Gee! You look wonderful! Raffaele <http://www.angelfire.com/mi/raffaele55/> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
In article <944597965.937…@Chaos.es.co.nz>, Harvey wrote: > In the end, we judge ourselves. > You know when you’re lying to others and to yourself. > You have a consciousness within you, that knows when > you’re doing something right or wrong – parents try > to make children aware of this identity within themself.
Concerning the issue rised in this thread, my opinion is that only a prize idiot may think that under no circumstances is acceptable to lie. Actually, in some cases this is the only choice. Save a live is an extreme example, but also extreme examples can help understanding that a rule isn’t absolute. > If everyone lies, then this would be a sad, sad world > – and a very dangerous one.
This is life. I don’t think that there is people who *never* lie, and if there are, they must be the most dangerous of all. Fanatics, that’s the word. The bottom line is that we are people, not computers. Principles are useful, but when it comes to applications, one must think and not to act automatically following a few rules. — All the best Raffaele <http://www.angelfire.com/mi/raffaele55/> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
nOBody, u got the best lines! the polite fictions that make real-life social > relations easier.
I’m just not gregarious enough. I’m not motivated enough to even *try* polite fiction. You ever notice the one, when somebody just got out of the hospital, and people are all going, "Doesn’t he look good?" U just sit there aghast! An extreme example might be a person who does not say > "how are you?" routinely to work colleagues, for the very good (?) > reason that their presence at work indicates that they are not unwell, > and therefore the question is superfluous, and would indicate a > curiosity that is not felt.
He’s over-analytical. Shouldn’t take "how r u" literally. Or a person who is unable to conceal sexual > interest as smoothly as others, and is therefore perceived as > threatening or socially gauche.
Concealing not too dishonest. Can’t go around saying, "Hey Man, I’m hot 4 ur wife!" how can anyone on a NG > ever know what is true and what is false in all that is said?
Cannot IRL either. That’s why I got trapped in some housewife’s fantasy on ICQ for 18 months. I’m also amazed at how freakin serious people get about newsgroups. They claim ownership, cry "invasion," rant about cross-posting, send nasties for OT posts, play war, or make grandiose exits. Anybody who thinks newsgroups are anything more than glorified grafitti walls needs to check themselves out. If they don’t like somebody, why not just not look at their posts? (as uv said, ic)
Response:
In the end, we judge ourselves. You know when you’re lying to others and to yourself. You have a consciousness within you, that knows when you’re doing something right or wrong – parents try to make children aware of this identity within themself. You’ll have sleepless nights and the problem will be on your mind, when you’re done something wrong – it won’t go away. But also, if you want to do something truly right, you can’t relax until the problem resolves itself, with or without your help. You can split hairs on what is honest? But you should be able to tell what is very bad and wrong, and what is on a lesser scale. You shouldn’t lie all the time, because you’ll adopt this as normal behaviour, and people won’t like you because you can’t be trusted. Trust is very important between friends. If everyone lies, then this would be a sad, sad world – and a very dangerous one. Harvey In article <82jh9t$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>, promis…@yahoo.com says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I have spent a couple of days reading all the posts in this NG. There >has been a lot said about lying and truthfulness. It has made me >think, thank you. >Has anyone considered that, in the right situation, a lie is better >than a truth. I know of times I would rather have been lied to. And I >know of times I wish I had of lied. Are we always "set free" by the >truth, or can we be prisoners of the truth? Sacrificing ourselves at >the altar of complete and utter honesty at whatever the cost to >ourselves and others; slaves to a purists vision of honesty. And then >of course, whose truth is true? For my truth may differ from yours. Who >judges my truth? >"Darling your hair is divine." >Thoughts from oobabie >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >Before you buy.
Response:
Yes, I agree with you on one hand, but make a distinction on the other hand, between innocent lies told to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, and lies intended to harm. Innocent lies, as in telling someone, "no, those pants don’t make your ass look fat", are part of sensitivity, and compassion, in my own opinion… while lies told to intentionally harm others, are not acceptable, and serve no purpose other than to harm… Facts are truth, and stand for themselves, and need no one to judge them… while a lie such as, "your hair looks good in that shade of green", is subjective to one’s judgment, as to whether or not you are actually doing that person a favor, by not telling them their hair looks terrible. After all, whether their hair looks good or not, is very subjective, and may vary with the beholder… Thank you for your thoughts… I hope you will feel comfortable in speaking openly in this group again, as you have done here… sincerely, Michael – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In article <82jh9t$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>, promis…@yahoo.com wrote: >I have spent a couple of days reading all the posts in this NG. There >has been a lot said about lying and truthfulness. It has made me >think, thank you. >Has anyone considered that, in the right situation, a lie is better >than a truth. I know of times I would rather have been lied to. And I >know of times I wish I had of lied. Are we always "set free" by the >truth, or can we be prisoners of the truth? Sacrificing ourselves at >the altar of complete and utter honesty at whatever the cost to >ourselves and others; slaves to a purists vision of honesty. And then >of course, whose truth is true? For my truth may differ from yours. Who >judges my truth? >"Darling your hair is divine." >Thoughts from oobabie >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >Before you buy.
Response:
In article <82jqv0$qp…@nnrp1.deja.com>, nOBody <obl…@my-deja.com> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <82jh9t$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>, > promis…@yahoo.com wrote: >> I have spent a couple of days reading all the >> posts in this NG. There has been a lot said about >> lying and truthfulness. It has made me think, thank you. > In relation to this, there are two different questions that are > obviously on-topic here. > The first is the general question of the relationship > between loneliness and truthfulness. It has been hinted > here several times that some people who come to this group > are lonely in part because they are unable or unwilling to > maintain the polite fictions that make real-life social > relations easier. An extreme example might be a person who > does not say "how are you?" routinely to work colleagues, > for the very good (?) reason that their presence at work > indicates that they are not unwell, and therefore the > question is superfluous, and would indicate a curiosity > that is not felt. Or a person who is unable to conceal sexual > interest as smoothly as others, and is therefore perceived as > threatening or socially gauche.
One can also think that the everyday hypocrisy is to be left behind at least in cyberspace. For example, the clerk will not tell his boss what he thinks about him, nor (often) viceversa. Same among teachers and students. Fellows, employees, superiors, customers, associates,… all these people have to be treated the best polite way even if you strongly dislike them. While the cyberspace allows cheating so easily, it also helps to be more upfront for what conventions are concerned. This does not mean, of course, that it is OK to insult each and every poster you dislike, but you don’t have to bear them either. Your tolerance level is yours only, unbiased by the need. Social conventions here are different. This is not my opinion only, but what happens everyday in most forums. Try to reproduce in this media the same conditions of real life is a lost cause, no matter if right or wrong. > The other question is about how truthfulness relates > to the functioning of a NG. There are many here who > seen to regard the category of "truth" as extremely > important when it comes to NG posts. Personally, I don’t.
I mostly agree with you. A few exceptions apart, as you have recently noticed. ;o) > I have replied to posts in the past offering support > where part of me was thinking "this post seems a bit > far-fetched – what if it is just a wind-up, a joke?" > However, the answer always comes: even if it is, a > person who was perfectly happy and not in need of some > kind of help would not engage in such sad antics… > so the justification is always there to reply, the > possibility of real communication is always there.
Another point in favor is that the info you post in public may be useful to other readers, that have really the same issues presented there. > If a person feels it necessary to provide false > information about their circumstances, that would > only make that person more interesting to me.
If they are really looking for feedback and alter the info, is their problem, as your reply will not be focused correctly. If they’re joking, well who cares, see the justification above. > But apart from that, the obvious question is: how > can anyone on a NG ever know what is true and what > is false in all that is said? Beyond a few delimited > and exremely trivial cases, they can not.
Good point. This reminds me the hysterism against a person who came here to meet people and has been accused of all sorts of crimes with no evidence. The same happened to him in further two forums. Actually, the "evidence" of his crimes was contained in posts to a third forum, coming from an anonymous source. Hilarious, if it were not very hurtful for the victim and disruptive for the group. > All we can do is read what is on the screen and > respond with our own thoughts. On Usenet, > "truth" is by and large an irrelevant concept.
True! … opps… > OB
– All the best Raffaele <http://www.angelfire.com/mi/raffaele55/> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
In article <82jh9t$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>, promis…@yahoo.com wrote: > I have spent a couple of days reading all the posts in this NG. There > has been a lot said about lying and truthfulness. It has made me > think, thank you.
In relation to this, there are two different questions that are obviously on-topic here. The first is the general question of the relationship between loneliness and truthfulness. It has been hinted here several times that some people who come to this group are lonely in part because they are unable or unwilling to maintain the polite fictions that make real-life social relations easier. An extreme example might be a person who does not say "how are you?" routinely to work colleagues, for the very good (?) reason that their presence at work indicates that they are not unwell, and therefore the question is superfluous, and would indicate a curiosity that is not felt. Or a person who is unable to conceal sexual interest as smoothly as others, and is therefore perceived as threatening or socially gauche. The other question is about how truthfulness relates to the functioning of a NG. There are many here who seen to regard the category of "truth" as extremely important when it comes to NG posts. Personally, I don’t. I have replied to posts in the past offering support where part of me was thinking "this post seems a bit far-fetched – what if it is just a wind-up, a joke?" However, the answer always comes: even if it is, a person who was perfectly happy and not in need of some kind of help would not engage in such sad antics… so the justification is always there to reply, the possibility of real communication is always there. If a person feels it necessary to provide false information about their circumstances, that would only make that person more interesting to me. But apart from that, the obvious question is: how can anyone on a NG ever know what is true and what is false in all that is said? Beyond a few delimited and exremely trivial cases, they can not. All we can do is read what is on the screen and respond with our own thoughts. On Usenet, "truth" is by and large an irrelevant concept. OB Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
<Post + email> Hi Oobabie, (BTW, you’re lucky that OB didn’t pick your nickname already, as now he call himself nOBody, like nobody else). In article <82jh9t$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>, promis…@yahoo.com wrote: > I have spent a couple of days reading all the posts > in this NG. There has been a lot said about lying and > truthfulness.
It is not the first time. A true obsession here, also because it is full of liars… opps… > It has made me think, thank you.
It is already "somethink". What we need here is people with a number of brain cells large enough to support this interesting phenomenon. > Has anyone considered that, in the right situation, > a lie is better than a truth.
Good point. This reminds to me an outright stupid remark by one who said that even to defend one own’s live, a honest person must never lie! Actually, there are cases where something more important can be saved. Besides, also "professional" lies, to cover what *must* stay a secret. After all, a captured soldier who rejects to tell the *truth* to the enemy, maybe giving false informations, is looked at as a hero rather than a "liar". > I know of times I would rather have been lied to. > And I know of times I wish I had of lied.
I would like to take a poll: how many people here has *never* lied? Those say "ME? NEVER!" are for sure the biggest liars. > Are we always "set free" by the truth, or can we > be prisoners of the truth? Sacrificing ourselves at > the altar of complete and utter honesty at whatever > the cost to ourselves and others; slaves to a purists > vision of honesty.
One can find links among any two concepts, however it may not be sensible if done abstractly. So for truth and freedom. You’re making a good point here about being "prisoniers". Think, for example, of a hypotetical world where absolutely nothing can be covered. All your properties, all your actions, all your very thoughs are available in some public archive where they will last forever. It sounds like to live in a fish-pond. Who would choose that? What I find it true in reality, is that this purists vision may bev very fitting to an authority that wants to suppress freedom. Information is power, and having tame citizens who feel they have no choice is a good way to control them, especially in a world where direct control becomes more and more difficult. Now, if lying to harm somebody, or just for the hell of it, is a bad thing to do, there are certainly cases where a more important priority makes this scruple unreasonable. > And then of course, whose truth is true? > For my truth may differ from yours. Who > judges my truth?
Here we are going to a more subtle twist of the discussion. Well, when the statement is clear enough to be correctly understood by anybody, the truth has an objective value. Such as: "X has killed Y but shooting two bullets from his gun". You may not know if this is true or false, but it *must* be either true or false. If you say: "X has killed Y", this may refer to an actual murder as above, but perhaps also to an indirect cause, just a way to say that the suffering caused by X has had a role in Y’s death. Or it may even be an out of context allusion to a suffering without a real death. If you say: "X has intentionally hurt Y", this sentence is open to a lot of different interpretations. Finally, try and state: "X is a arsehole", and imagine how a literal reading of this sentence may be misleading. > "Darling your hair is divine."
This is another example of a sentence that can’t be decided as true or false. > Thoughts from oobabie
Thank you. — All the best Raffaele <http://www.angelfire.com/mi/raffaele55/> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
I have spent a couple of days reading all the posts in this NG. There has been a lot said about lying and truthfulness. It has made me think, thank you. Has anyone considered that, in the right situation, a lie is better than a truth. I know of times I would rather have been lied to. And I know of times I wish I had of lied. Are we always "set free" by the truth, or can we be prisoners of the truth? Sacrificing ourselves at the altar of complete and utter honesty at whatever the cost to ourselves and others; slaves to a purists vision of honesty. And then of course, whose truth is true? For my truth may differ from yours. Who judges my truth? "Darling your hair is divine." Thoughts from oobabie Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Response:
Filed under: Loneliness Lonely
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.