To be fair, I've never seen any kind of oral medication, quack or otherwise, that could cure a broken leg. Bone placement and time is the usual procedure. Plates and screws sometime too, but I don't think you can just swallow a handful of them.
Interesting that this thread has broken the surface again five years later. I haven't read it all, but there were some interesting discussions. It is all the more interesting as I was giving lying some further consideration recently. I was even going to write about it on my blog. What interests me is the response to questioning and the quasi obligation to lie. Suppose you are working for a company on a new product, X, which is destined to eat into the market share of product Y. Someone gets wind of this and asks you if you are working on product X. What are you supposed to reply? "Yes, we are." [which is the truth]. You can see how your company would be pleased with that response. The thing is, you didn't want anyone to ask you the question. You are obliged to lie because you were asked the question. The idea that you should never lie means that all power resides in whoever asks you questions. Questions about anything at all. Why should you make public what you'd prefer to remain private, just because someone has the audacity to ask you about it? Politicians are no different to company employees. They may not be ready to divulge what they are working on. Viz: "What is your Brexit strategy to get a good deal for the UK?" Why would you answer that? It's the end of your negotiating position. "Is it true that...?" You'd pretty much have to answer "No" even if it is true. When wondering if someone is telling the truth, you have to ask yourself what their motivations might be for lying. In many cases, they will have a lot of motivation. You can't expect people to always tell you the truth just because it is convenient for you to know it. That isn't how things are, no matter how much we would like them to be. As an aside, my default position is to tell the truth because (a) I make a poor lier (b) telling the truth is far less complicated in the long run (c) it tends to disarm your questioner (d) I think I was brought up to do it. But I'm not sure this strategy has really done me any favours in life. It might even show me to be ingenuous, immature or even infantile.
Or you can say you don't know. Or you don't understand the question. Or you are bound by professional privilege. Or you ignore the question and say what you want to say. Or you claim it's not a fair question. Or you plead the Fifth Amendment. Or you answer a question with another question. Or ... or ...
Most of which are lies. You doing know, you do understand, you did hear them...and anything other than yes/no assumes 'no smoke without fire' Tough, innit.
The fool is the believer. The truth is just an idea. Its notional and can be anything. Lies are just other ideas. Meaning is applied by the believer. The responsibility is theirs and theirs alone. Don't blame the messenger. Ive got a big cock. May as well make it a big lie. Actually, it's huge.
You are responsible for the message someone receives. You sent it. Its why internet (FB, twitter, forums) are so tough
The truth is subjective for a great many things. Whats true for you, isn't necessarily true for others. Plus you must bear responsibility for what you believe. Responsibility for what you say, doesnt necessarily mean anything. All of these are words we've attached meaning to. I note you didnt disagree with the size of my cock. Just what do you believe?
But you do know. But of course you do understand the question. You're not thick. So we infer that the answer is "yes". Which is what the exasperating and nonsensical interviews on Radio 4's Today are like, ie, bullshit. . Well, that's just lies for a start. Just a different lie. . We don't have a 5th Amendment in the UK. More shenanigans. How is this morally or ethically superior to lying? I agree with Bradders.
Not literally. But we have the caution: "You have the right to remain silent ..." etc. People are generally not obliged to provide evidence against themselves (with a few exceptions).
You made the point that if one is asked a question, one is obliged either to disclose information one does not want to disclose, or to lie. My point was: not quite, there are many other options, and I suggested a few. I wasn't suggesting those options are necessarily ethically superior.
People agree to go on Today because they have points they wish to make, so they appear, make their points, and leave. The idiotic "questions" asked by the presenters are totally irrelevant, exasperating, and nonsensical. So perhaps we are in agreement.
Nobody cares what questions are asked; the questions are beside the point. Politicians are not witnesses being cross-examined. They are more like advocates giving speeches.
I read his point as, if you claim to be honest and always honest, you have no choice but to answer. Anything else, misdirection etc, is not being honest. Answering with a question, though, would fall within the honesty parameter, subject to them not asking again lol
I think you are also responsible for how the message given is interpreted - true it is hard to see humour in words sometimes, especially dry humour which abounds on here but generally this place is a haven of similar minded people with many different backgrounds and opinions and a lot of fun
Couldn't agree more. Shame most doing understand, or accept, responsibility for it. Not in the real world and the digital one.
I'm not so sure. To be honest, I think that Today is like a boxing match. The programme summons politicians and the like to explain themselves. They have no wish to be there, but feel morally obliged to turn up (or more likely, their bosses tell them to). They then submit to the grilling, but they have been told by their PR people in advance that all they have to do is survive a round of about 3 minutes without admitting to anything and then the programme will be obliged to roll on to the next topic. Hence you get the most ridiculous and irrelevant interviews, full of corporate-speak and communicating nothing, answering no questions and making the listener none the wiser. Should the interviewee actually impart any information at all, this is immediately included in the news headlines as a piece of massively important information. TBH, I'm pretty much fed up with the programme. John Humphrys is like listening to your grandfather (and I'm 57) - well past his sell-by date. Sarah Montague is some sort of aggressive school ma'am. I only like Mishal Hussein and Nick Robinson. One for Cantab, one for Oxon.
