= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dlthomas comments on How to understand people better - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (164)
I, for one, understand that the definition of lying you are choosing to use here is simply "making false statements." It does not make sense to argue over what definition is "correct." I do want to be sure you are aware that many people understand lying to be "intending to deceive," particularly when things are morally charged, and you would be wise to taboo "lie" when this is relevant.
As a matter of curiosity: pursuant to your particular definition of lying as you were using it above, would you call making a true statement with the intent that it deceive and the knowledge that it is likely to do so "a lie" or "not a lie"?
I certainly hope that's not what it looked like I was doing.
Oh, I am. I was just curious about Jack's specific definition.
In point of fact, I would call that a "deception", not a "lie". So, [a statement made with intent to deceive] = a "deception", and [a statement of something that is known to be false] = a "lie". So the two qualities are independent of each other. (Incidentally, [a statement of something that is false, but thought to be correct] would be a "mistake".)
I wonder whether the legal system considers "making a true statement with the intent to deceive" perjury?
It looked like what was generally happening - I'm not interested in meting out blame for it.
Good.
Alright, interesting. FWIW, I can go either way on that one.
To some extent, wouldn't this amount to most defenses when the accused is guilty? This seems like a bad idea, unfortunately.
You lost me. (Pleading "Not Guilty" when you are guilty isn't perjury because it's not under oath, but I don't see what that has to do with "making a true statement with the intent to deceive".)
Also, you only need the > at the beginning of each paragraph.
Generally, statements made in the defense would be made with the intent that people draw the conclusion that the defendant is, in fact, not guilty. A guilty defendant could then not legally testify at all.
Gracias.
Well, there's a reason people plead the Fifth.
Y de nada.
Googles ...
Though I suppose this wouldn't protect someone from prosecution for sarcasm.
You wanted the previous page. Yes, for perjury, the statement must actually be false.
Oh, you're totally right. I misread the parent.
No worries.
For what it's worth, I'm not actually sure what I was going for there.
Edit: Yeah, that was probably it.
I assumed "curiosity"