Lying Without Intent
#1
Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:05 PM
However, the thing is, he doesn't realize that he's lying. He thinks that what he's saying is the honest, genuine truth, and he means it - he has no idea that it's wrong, but it is what he believed was the truth.
What do you guys think? Should that be counted against him?
#2
Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:17 PM
#3
Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:35 PM
#4
Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:56 PM
#5
Posted 03 June 2007 - 09:10 PM
#7
Posted 03 June 2007 - 11:44 PM
"Its a lie, its a lie, and don't you believe it"
#8
Posted 04 June 2007 - 12:14 AM
#10
Posted 04 June 2007 - 03:15 AM
@Split/Me111: In GL's example, the person in question is sure of their memory/sources, even though they are incorrect.
Still, I think it depends somewhat on their reasons for believing what they do. If someone just told them something and they took it to be the cast-iron truth, then depending on what it is - say that their spouse is cheating on them, they could be critiscised for beliving it without evidence (so even if they believed it, other people might not in that situation). If they saw what they interpreted to be spouse wife cheating on them (even if it wasn't - *cough rehearsing a play cough*) then people would be more leinient.
This kinda reminds me a bit of the old 'Ignorance is no excuse' argument. You can't go to another country and brake the law, and then claim that you didn't know it was a law in the new country.
#11
Posted 04 June 2007 - 04:01 AM
#12
Posted 04 June 2007 - 04:53 AM
@GL: Why do you ask this, did something similar happen to you?
#13
Posted 04 June 2007 - 06:06 AM
Spam King, on Jun 4 2007, 11:01 AM, said:
Whaaaaaat? Sorry, I don't understand you. If you're referring to my response to your original post, then what I mean is that You can believe something to be true, without a shred of doubt whatsoever, even if it isn't true. You were implying that the person was unsure of their belief, in which case they should state it, which I agree with. If they are sure of their belief, even if its untrue then they aren't 'lieing' and shouldn't be critiscised for it.
In the end it kinda boils down to individual people and how gullible they are. 100 people who aren't gullible who are told a lie and don't belive it aren't going to sympathise with one person who is gullible and believes it.
#15
Posted 04 June 2007 - 09:40 PM
So, why would they not know the full, true story? That's why I think the question is a bit iffy.
I'm not sure how clear that was, so if it doesn't make sense, my bad.
#16
Posted 05 June 2007 - 12:26 AM
#18
Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:17 PM
Aquamarine, on Jun 4 2007, 06:53 AM, said:
@GL: Why do you ask this, did something similar happen to you?
Spam King, on Jun 5 2007, 06:36 PM, said:
Not any specific one that comes to mind. This is one of those things that I've always been curious about, those things that you might encounter but never really challenge or consider deeper.
It's really just to see what kind of answers it would get, and so far, some satisfying thoughts on it :P
#19
Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:38 PM
On the one hand, if I'm allowed to be leniant, he is, just like anybody is, human. And something like this is normal. We all make mistakes, obviously. So maybe have a little sympathy for him. =/
#20
Posted 05 June 2007 - 08:07 PM
But seriously, it depends on the way the person themselves think. If what they think is honestly wrong, but they honestly think it is true because they've been corrupted or are in denial, (for example) then I think they should be blamed.