|
Sample Debate To Lie CHARACTERS: A) An average person. B) Somebody who understands semantic reasoning. Situation: Individual A says his spouse lied to him. A admits that his spouse didn't say anything immediately false, but through sarcasm, twisting words, and other techniques lied. A's spouse insists she didn't lie but acknowledges she mislead. A wants a third opinion. Debate: A: So what she did was lie, wasn't it? B: That depends on how you define lie. Regardless of which definition you choose you will still want to do the same thing. A: No. If she lied then that is much more serious. If she didn't lie then I have no right to be angry. B: You are mistaken. Why do you care if you are lied to? A: If somebody lies to me then it proves that I cannot trust them. Once somebody has lied to me it, rationally, prevents me from being able to emotionally connect to them because I understand I may get hurt by them. B: Okay. By that exact same reasoning anybody who intentionally misleads you, by true statement or not, is more likely to hurt you and therefore cannot be trusted by you as much. A: I suppose. B: Do you see why it doesn't matter if it was a lie or not, since you two aren't using the same definition of lie? A: But there is a difference. It still does matter because this way I at least have more reason to trust what she declaratively says, if not what she implies. B: That is correct. There is some difference between saying statements which are objectively false and misleading intentionally without saying statements that are objectively false. But regardless of which a person does it is irrelevant whether you call it a "lie" or not. A: Hmmm. B: If you want to know how to react; whether to divorce your wife or trust her less then simply weigh out the consequences. Avoid the semantics. |