Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Spurling, Shannon wrote:
>
>
> > > Again, you are missing the point, which I have made again and again. 
> > > It is not that I necessarily disbelieve the assertions, but also 
> > > asking the question - what does this evidence really show.  Also, I 
> > > have said several times that the photograph of the voter registration 
> > > card is actually not half bad evidence, certainly the best yet.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I think this is where we have a good point of how a reasonable argument
> > should proceed. You have good evidence that shows he was registered
> > Republican at a certain date and time. You cannot guess his motives
> > based solely on this. You have to then have him explain him self. You
> > can then evaluate this on the basis of his response.
>
>
> How completely irrelevant is that?  The point is not what he was 
> thinking when he registered as a Republican.  The point is that during 
> ensuing years he said repeatedly that he was not registered as a 
> Republican but as an independent.  The point is:  What was he thinking 
> when he made that false claim?  If he was thinking "I know this isn't 
> true but I will say it anyway" then he clearly was lying.
>
> We don't know what he was thinking.  Still, this usually isn't a valid 
> excuse.  For example, if I were director of the FDA and someone said 
> they were concerned that I had a conflict of interest because I owned 
> stock in a pharmaceutical company, and I said that I owned no such stock 
> when I really did own it, would I be lying?  Then suppose someone proved 
> that I did own stock, contrary to my earlier claim, and I then said "I 
> have no idea how that happened -- I really thought I did not own that 
> stock." What would you think of that?  Well, if you are consistent, you 
> would defend me and suggest that it was probably just an innocent mistake.

You make a good point.  But let me elaborate on your second example. 
There are two issues - first do I personally think (in your hypothetical 
scenario) that you are guilty, and secondly, are you legally guilty.  It 
is very possible that I would consider you legally guilty, but still 
feel sorry for you, and think that you are an honest and upright guy who 
just happened to make a mistake.  Of course, you will have to get fired 
from your FDA position, but I'll feel bad for you.

And of course, you have a legal responsibility when you become director 
of the FDA, so you should have been more careful.  On the other hand, 
the counter-argument that O'Reilly also should have been more careful is 
also valid - even though he didn't have a legal responsibility, I do 
agree with you that he screwed the pooch on this one.

--

Stephen Montgomery-Smith
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion