pedanterrific comments on How to understand people better - Less Wrong

76 Post author: pwno 14 October 2011 07:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (164)
Tags: empathy

Comments (164)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pedanterrific 12 October 2011 02:48:33AM 3 points [-]

It does not make sense to argue over what definition is "correct."

I certainly hope that's not what it looked like I was doing.

I do want to be sure you are aware

Oh, I am. I was just curious about Jack's specific definition.

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"?

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?

Comment author: dlthomas 12 October 2011 03:15:27AM *  1 point [-]

I certainly hope that's not what it looked like I was doing.

It looked like what was generally happening - I'm not interested in meting out blame for it.

I do want to be sure you are aware

Oh, I am. I was just curious about Jack's specific definition.

Good.

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"?

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".)

Alright, interesting. FWIW, I can go either way on that one.

I wonder whether the legal system considers "making a true statement with the intent to deceive" perjury?

To some extent, wouldn't this amount to most defenses when the accused is guilty? This seems like a bad idea, unfortunately.

Comment author: pedanterrific 12 October 2011 03:22:10AM *  0 points [-]

I wonder whether the legal system considers "making a true statement with the intent to deceive" perjury?

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.

Comment author: dlthomas 12 October 2011 03:27:59AM 1 point [-]

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.

Also, you only need the > at the beginning of each paragraph.

Gracias.

Comment author: pedanterrific 12 October 2011 04:02:03AM 0 points [-]

A guilty defendant could then not legally testify at all.

Well, there's a reason people plead the Fifth.

Y de nada.

Comment author: Jack 12 October 2011 02:54:54AM *  1 point [-]

I wonder whether the legal system considers "making a true statement with the intent to deceive" perjury?

Googles ...

The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory.

Though I suppose this wouldn't protect someone from prosecution for sarcasm.

Comment author: dlthomas 12 October 2011 03:04:28AM 1 point [-]

You wanted the previous page. Yes, for perjury, the statement must actually be false.

Comment author: Jack 12 October 2011 03:07:10AM 1 point [-]

Oh, you're totally right. I misread the parent.

Comment author: dlthomas 12 October 2011 03:17:32AM 1 point [-]

No worries.

Comment author: pedanterrific 12 October 2011 03:23:41AM *  0 points [-]

For what it's worth, I'm not actually sure what I was going for there.

Edit: Yeah, that was probably it.

Comment author: dlthomas 12 October 2011 03:29:23AM 1 point [-]

I assumed "curiosity"

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit