The difference between dissent and disloyalty

I certainly feel that intention must be a part of lying -- although I must acknowledge that Craven has shown a dictionary definition that seems to contradict that feeling.

Perhaps the difference between lie, the verb and lie, the noun truly is important -- although I've given it much thought and have not been able to compose a reasonable argument that illustrates the difference.

Hope someone gives it a try -- and perhaps the rest of us can add and subtract to make sense of it. If not -- I have to go along with McTag and say that the definition given in Websters is probably faulty. (There are lots of those kinds of things!)

0 Replies

I had no real intention to start a logomachy but now that it's good and going and seemingly friendly..

First of all the difference bewteen the noun and the verb is that the verb refers to the act, and most people would agree that the act has to be an intentional deceit.

The noun refers to the statement, and more people are willing to define a false statement as a lie. Regardless of whether it is intentional.

The problem is that one is inextricable from the other, if lie the noun can mean an apocryphal statement then the verb can mean the act of deliuvering one even without intent to deceive.

Now deb, your reading of your dictionary might be a bit convenient for you. I'd read the definition you quoted as supporting the notion that a simple falsehood consitutes a lie. I base it on the part of your definition that defines a lie as ";a falsehood". Before that it talks about intentional deceit but I take that part as a separate definition. Maybe I'm guilty of a convenient reading.

In any case I love that people here are willing to call a dictionary wrong. I never consider a Dictionary the final word, they disagree too often to be good gatekeepers.

If I were to define the word I'd make intent a prerequisite, but in usage I think many times it is applied simply when something is false.

Anywho, check out what Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary thinks of this argument here: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

0 Replies

Quote:

In any case I love that people here are willing to call a dictionary wrong.

I find this interesting when compared to how often people here refuse to consider the possibility that a source they offer is wrong. I suppose no one has any personal baggage tied up in the dictionary the way we do in our opinions.

0 Replies

Craven

One of the things I like most about being an agnostic, is that the idea of possibly being wrong is inexorably tied into any guess or conjecture an agnostic makes.

I have seen many dictionaries that do not define words adequately. I looked for a word to fit how I felt about that -- and ended up using the word "faulty" in my initial presentiation.

Dictionaries tend to use definitions that are handy for people -- as opposed to the kind of very specific kinds of definitions needed for intense debate.

Consider the words swearing, cursing, profanity, vulgarity. Each has a very, very specific meaning, but most dictionaries really do not deal with them from specificity.

The word "believe" and the word "agnostic" have been defined at times in dictionaries in ways that makes me cringe.

Interesting tangent you have offered here.

0 Replies

I think the reason there is that second definition for a lie is that a person may say something which is called into question... it becomes a lie once it is known to be untrue. Perhaps the more telling explanation of a lie (noun) is found in the Thesauraus. A misstatement is a lie that might be made with no intent to falsify information.

Quote:

Entry Word: lie
Function: noun
Text: a statement or declaration that is not true <was sued for printing lies about the candidate>
Synonyms ||bouncer, canard, cock-and-bull story, falsehood, falsity, fib, inveracity, misrepresentation, misstatement, prevarication, ||rapper, story, tale, taradiddle, untruism, untruth
Related Word deceitfulness, dishonesty, distortion, fraudulence, inaccuracy, mendacity; fable, flam, myth; falsification, forgery, libel, perjury; fish story, song and dance
Idioms *crock of ****

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

First of all the difference bewteen the noun and the verb is that the verb refers to the act, and most people would agree that the act has to be an intentional deceit.

The noun refers to the statement, and more people are willing to define a false statement as a lie. Regardless of whether it is intentional.

The problem is that one is inextricable from the other, if lie the noun can mean an apocryphal statement then the verb can mean the act of deliuvering one even without intent to deceive.

The interesting part (to me anyway..) is that we DO manage to make the distinction anyway. If someone says something and they know it is wrong then they are branded a liar. If they unwittingly repeat the lie then we refer to them as "misguided", "misinformed", "ignorant" or some other term.

Those who repeat the lie unwittingly are pretty much excused as a matter of course (they may suffer some slight embarrassment but not much else..) where those who pass it along knowingly become the object of scorn and ridicule.

0 Replies

Here, by the way, is what Dwight Eisenhower said about dissent and disloyalty:

Quote:

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

0 Replies

Quote:

...it becomes a lie once it is known to be untrue...

I would argue that it was always a lie, whether or not it was recognized as false at any point in time. The truth or untruth of a statement is not a function of our knowing its truth or untruth, it is inherent in itself.

Erwin Schroedinger might disagree, of course. (He'd tell us that the statement is both true and untrue, until we know which.) Very Happy

0 Replies

Hmmm, well, good point about the recognition aspect. A lie is a lie is a lie. However, a statement can also be made before its veracity is known. For example, one could declare that, "Funny Cide will win the Triple Crown," and after June 5th, that could be found to be a lie.

0 Replies

Hmmm... I'm not sure that a prediction that later turns out not to have been true doesn't fit the term "lie" to me, but I guess it fits the simple "untrue = lie" definition we're batting around.

Tuesday, May 20
Wow! I really was tired yesterday wasn't I? Here's what I meant to write:
Hmmm... I'm not sure that a prediction that later turns out not to have been true fits the term "lie", but I guess it fits the simple "untrue = lie" definition we're batting around. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Interesting!

0 Replies

Interesting!

I wondered if you'd get me on that "falsehood", Craven.....heehee.

0 Replies

Well, since I may want to point to something definitional in a future thread, I want to go on record as saying that if I ever use the word "lie" (I seldom if ever accuse anyone of lying) -- but if I do, I mean that the untrue statement was delivered with the deliverer intending to deceive.

0 Replies

Righting Wrongs

"Our country right or wrong" is the first part of the definition of true patriotism that Carl Schurz set before the United States Senate in 1872. The second part is, "When right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

I've gone back to the begining of this thread and noticed an agreement among all those who allow free speech (dissent) to be limited. They don't seem to grasp that if you condition free speech, then it is not free speech.

Long ago, the supreme court said that free speech does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. so, OK. But making a crowd angry for denouncing a war or whatever, does not give that crowd the right to beat you up. The idea that that makes our troops demoralized or whatever, is logically, saying you don't believe in free speech.
If you can't dissent except by government approval. then you can't "dissent.'

By the way there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits criticizing the president or the military in time of war.

0 Replies

Excellent post, Billy Falcon!

0 Replies

I second that, Frank. Something I'm increasingly interested in is the gradual, almost subterranean shift of burden of proof from government to citizen. As many have pointed out (and I've been taking up this cause lately), the Constitution was not written to protect citizens from each other or the government from citizens, but to put government itself on a leash. It's the rulebook for American government, not a set of "rights" for citizens. Our rights are "god given," the government's (from local police to president) are limited by the Constitution.

0 Replies

BillyFalcon wrote:

I've gone back to the begining of this thread and noticed an agreement among all those who allow free speech (dissent) to be limited. They don't seem to grasp that if you condition free speech, then it is not free speech.

An even bigger travesty, many don't seem to comprehend that the "Free Speech" clause in the 1st Amendment is a prohibition against GOVERNMENT interference with speech. Free speech in a private setting or a non-government public setting (i.e. this forum..) isn't guaranteed.

Quote:

Long ago, the supreme court said that free speech does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. so, OK. But making a crowd angry for denouncing a war or whatever, does not give that crowd the right to beat you up.

No, it doesn't. But their free speech rights also give them just as much right to tell the dissenters to shut the hell up. The sword cuts both ways.

0 Replies

I believe this is a private setting, isn't it?

0 Replies

Depends on terminology I suppose. It's private in the respect that it isn't government owed or operated but it is open and viewable to the public.

0 Replies

"it is open and viewable to the public."
and so is my front yard

0 Replies

The difference between dissent and disloyalty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know