Does this make me a liar?
A Defination.
A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others.
Would this be a lie?
Say a friend called and asked me to go to a BBQ at their place. I say sure! I will be there. They then push me and I say, ‘Look. I promise I will be there. I will get into my car, travel down the highway and get there!’
The day arrives. I get into my car and buy my BBQ food and head off down the highway. But there is a problem and the highway is closed off.
If I head back home and not attend the BBQ, have I lied?
If I head through side roads and bypass the highway and get to the BBQ albeit a little late, have I lied?
Because technically in both cases I have lied. In the first instance I did not attend. And in the second instance, I bypassed the highway.
The question though is did I know the road will be blocked? Or does that not matter as I made the promise and I have to strictly keep it no matter what?
Thoughts please.
…
A. Ghebranious 2011 (All Rights Reserved)
Ash's Machiavellian Bloggery 
Good to know . Ash you are not.
I don’t think people actually understand the meaning – or the relative depths – of lies.
There’s the saying “Better 1 beautiful lie, than 3 ugly lies”.
which suggests the purpose of telling “White” lies.
– Lies that don’t actually cause (malice) harm to anyone.
But from childhood, we’ve all been drilled in the thought that “Never tell lies”; “Lies are always bad” etc, etc.
It just goes to suggest that often quoted position that “Westerners” just can’t see anything other than Black and White.
I think the “she lied she lied” is a stupid, unintelligent argument that really only shows the deceit of the people who trot it out.
Those going on the attack about so called lying, were always going to vote Liberal. Hence the rude arse lady in the shop telling big whopping lies the other day. She pretended to ask a question, refused to listen to an answer because she had no intention of wanting to hear an actual answer and then rudely snipped off about how she would listen to Julia Gillard when Julia stopped lying.
In fact the stupidly ignorant sounding woman in the shop was the biggest liar of all. She would NEVER have voted Labor, she would never have listened to a Labor government before or after an election. She’s the Liar. She’s the liar that likes to pretend that she may have ever voted any other way than Liberal.
The Liberals have “changed their minds” (or pretended to) more times then they’ve changed underwear and somehow thats ok?
I simply do not believe for one moment that any of these people really care about what PM Gillard said or didn’t say because they wouldn’t listen, change their vote or tap dance any differently then they did before. “She lied She lied” is just a big ol’ convenient stick to beat the government with because their precious Liberals didn’t get to be in government this time. Such sore losers these Liberals are. Calling for a new election every 5 minutes because they don’t like the results.
Hey Ash,
I don’t think people are particularly upset about the fact (in and of itself) that she lied, I think the problem is that she said one thing before an election, was elected (just), and then the situation came about that her government did indeed champion a price on carbon.
You know my politics run different to yours, but I’m completely behind the government on this. They are doing a good thing and making a hard decision. But I think the characterisation of the left that this is a consequence-less mind-change being characterised as lying through the teeth is a bit thin.
Agree. But again. The coalition PREFERENCED the greens. That changed the game not only in the HoR but in the Senate. IE the highway blockage. it is true she could have gone home, but Abbott would have called her a liar for not doing anything on climate change. And since she did, he is calling her a liar because she did.
Does not take away from the fact that there was no intention. And of course the other fact that Abbott has a problem with the gospel and truth himself. A lot.
This is a no-ashgebrainer. You did not lie. When you promised to go the BBQ you did not know the road to the BBQ venue would be closed. This is proven by the fact that you bought BBQ stuff before you headed off. If you’d known the road was closed & you were going to use that as an excuse for not turning up, you wouldn’t have taken anything with you. In fact, you wouldn’t have even attempted to get to the BBQ if that had been the case. You’d have sat at home & watched the footy instead. In politics, as in life, we have to be flexible enough to divert from our original path when the path is closed off to us. Without that flexibility, we will find ourselves slamming into a brick wall that wasn’t there last week and doing ourselves and others a lot of damage.
does anyone really care? About the attendance at the BBQ? I mean, if the rest of the guests were polled & asked if they cared whether or not you attended, and they all said NO, would it really matter anyway? Mind you, if the host really wanted you there, and some of the guests said “aww, fuck no, not him(her?) and you rolled up anyway, do YOU really care what some of the guests might think?
And if your question is obscure and politically slanted, as I suspect is the case, you’re not a BBQ guest, you’re the host. You’ve said “I will not have sausages at any BBQ I host in the New Year”, but upon reflection, you’ve realised that steak is expansive & there are more freeloaders coming along then you bargained for, so bugger it, you have sausages. They either stay at the BBQ or fuck right off. Who really cares?
No I was the guest. And the host demanded I make a promise. Well they did so over the communications networks anyway and the conversation went out to all the party guests in a mass phone link up.
I do not believe the PM lied. The PM said she would not bring in a carbon tax. The PM is not bringing in a carbon tax.
The PM is bringing in a cap and trade like scheme.
All that I have read says that a carbon tax and a cap and trade scheme are not the same.
To say the PM lied, you have to prove that at the time, she was planning to bring in the present scheme.
The PM also said at the carbon there would be no carbon tax, she intended to go ahead with putting a price on carbon.
Therefore to prove the PM lied, you have to ignore many other things that was said at the same time.
The PM in hindsight made a mistake in not denying she had lied. The reasoning for her action in this regard made sense. She did not want to get caught up in an argument whether she lied or not.
The PM wanted to keep the carbon pricing mechanism and how it would work centre stage. The PM was mistaken in believing that the accusations of lying would be seen as a beat up and see the alleged lie in it;s proper perspective. Sadly she was mistaken.
I believe that many are using the alleged lie as a reason to attack the PM. The truth is more likely that the reason is that they do not like her because the PM is a single woman who has the hide to be childless and live in a defacto relationship. Not believing in religion does not hurt either.
Most are reluctant to attack her openly on these grounds, because many in their own families live similar lives. having children today this not seen as a reason to marry.
What it comes down to is that all promises are made assuming a certain set of circumstance.
When the circumstances change, so must the promises.
In Gillard’s case, she’s trying to have it both ways. She said there would be no carbon tax under any government she leads. The circumstances that changed were a hung parliament. Gillard does not actually lead the government. No, I’m not saying she’s being controlled by Bob Brown, that’s idiotic. But the truth is, she presides over a loose coalition and therefore is forced to compromise. Under the system, there’s nothing wrong with that, but she wants to maintain the illusion that the prime minister is the be-all and end-all of any government. Both major parties’ stories are based on a misunderstanding of the parliamentary system.
“Both major parties’ stories are based on a misunderstanding of the parliamentary system”
This is generally the case when a labor does not do what some want.
I know where this metaphor is going. In short, it is not a lie if you think you are speaking the truth.