brianeyci wrote:
You obviously don't know what "better" in a forum called morality means, or what "always" means, or what "to be" means. All words you used. I picked something provocative on purpose to see whether you would see with a simple word substitution I could destroy your semantic whoring.
It's not semantics whoring. And this forum doesnt change the meaning of better, nor does it change the sentence "always better to be honest" to the sentense "you should always be honest".
They have to seperate meanings.
"I find it is always better to be honest" means that in my experience, there are few reasons to lie about something and in almost every case you can word the truth in a way that it is not 'brutally honest' unless you WANT to be that way. Mind you i've never had anyone call me brutally honest before, ever.
"You should always be honest" means that there is no possible excuse for dishonesty. This is, in itself, dishonest. Of course there are excuses. But that doesnt mean it's right, just that you can think of a logical explanation. All the examples and arguments you've made have not met the criteria for a logical explaination. I'm not teh only one who pointed this out.
Listen to what Boyish-Tigerlily said.
BT wrote:If you are talking about an ethical justification, I could understand justification = right.
Now in a forum called morality, when someone mentions better, I assume an ethical justification. Do you dig homey?
I'm sorry i'm not sure what you mean. Justification for telling the truth? Of course. For lying, under some circumstances, you have no other choice or no logical alternitive. I never said otherwise. YOU were the one who said that theer were a myriad of reasons why you can and should lie in x situation or y situation.
What is your problem? I said nothing about that experience crap, i forgot it. What do you want me to say? That lying is OK and perfectly ethical because you lie and you need someone to reinforce your crap?
It is NOT right to lie. It can be justified, but that does not make it right. I never said you should always tell the truth, i said it was always better to be honest, that means it is preferable. I.e it is always preferable to be honest. I said lying is bad, i.e it is wrong to lie, but i also said you can justify it i simply never said justification somehow made it right. It's not right to lie, it is wrong. It is a good thing, that is to say 'right', to tell the truth. You should try and it is better if you did. In the cases presented there was no reason to lie. You brought up examples of justification, examples which were complete shit and you were called on it by more people than just little old me. I gave examples that could also be disproven. The fact that there are shades of gray does not mean that you cant have a better choice or justify an bad alternitive.
You keep shifting the goalpost from what you said. So many words here, and you still don't get that all I said was that lying was justified depending on the circumstances. I don't know how you turned a 4 sentence post into a flamewar... well I started it since three of the sentences was baiting you with a bullshit tactic, but the last one was really the crux of my argument, that sometimes it's justified to lie, and that's all there was to it.
I never said it wasnt justified. You gave examples of situation where lying is NOT justified and, sometimes, can be very bery bad or even harmful. As i said back then, lets say you lie to your child. You've now compromised his trust, why should he ever trust you again?
Why don't you admit that my initial, four sentence post, was just about lying being okay depending on valid reasons and stop drawing more from it than that.
I never said it wasnt ok to lie in some situations, only that it is preferable and right to avoid doing so unless it is your only viable option. And again your examples had zero to do with this, and were loaded with other possible options, which you ignored or did not notice.
And I said white lie.
Fine. Define it.
A white lie is a lie which is not harmful.[/quote]
To whom? You? Them? Both? And if so how do you determine what is and isnt harmful? By what magic scrying are we to derive this information?
I didn't see the whole episode, but you're right she did get sick.
Seeing as it was House, i'm not surprised. That means that the woman's lie was causing undue, unnecessary harm. Dig?
I am not sure whether she was going to die or not, or whether she would later find out. But if she never finds out, or the mother breaks it to her when she thinks the kid can handle it
How do you know she will ever be able to handle such a massive blatant compromise of her trust?
the lie is not harmful but is actually beneficial because it delays telling the truth until the child is grown up.
Yeah that's right. The lie only made her sick and she probably would have died if not for a genius renegade Black Jack-like doctor. No harm done.
And if the child becomes emotionally traumatized because you tell them they're adopted or deliberately had sex and gave them a disease?
I seriously doubt anyone has ever been traumatized by finding out their adopted. There are millions of adopted kids out there, you think they're all teetering on the edge of sanity with only the knowledge they arent adopted holding them inplace? And if you have sex to purposefully give a kid a disease you should never be allowed to have children. Ever. I cant even imagine such a massively narcissistic act. Gee would almost be better to have never done it, now aint it?
It depends on the child, so it's never a universal one way or the other. It depends on whether the child is emotionally mature enough to handle it.
Again there are millions of adopted kids, and to my knowledge no one has ever cracked up because they found out they were adopted. In fact some adopted people actually try to find their real parents. And yes i would imagine they would be upset to find out someone had sex with another person just to make them sick and would have every right to hate their mother under those circumstances.
Ok, give a good reason not to tell the kid. Secondly, it is NOT necessary to without this information. It wont help them, nor will it hurt them, it can only let them know the truth.
Uh, she will hate the mother and not listen to her? She is emotionally hurt by the idea which she will not be later when she's grown up?
Do you honestly think this is how adopted kids think? Do you really think they're that fragile? You realize most of them grow up normal right...they arent like another species. This isnt someone picking up a Kryptonian here they just now know they have seperate biological parents elsehwhere.
You make it worse off than what I initially posted. I didn't just post my boss being an ass, I posted the company being an ass as well. As for personal responsibility, how do you define that as personal, when I have no responsibility to people who do not treat me well? My responsibility is to myself, to take care of my family, and that means keeping my job at all costs. That means a lot of personal responsibility.
Personal responsibility also means doing your job. Your first post said "what if you are told to do a job, and dont do it in time, and lie to cover your ass" basically. You should do it on time, if you cant explain that to the boss, unless you think they're too stupid to figure out you've not yet done the job.
You keep going over and over about my "lack of personal responsibility" for lying to my boss. Tell me, do you even know what I am talking about? Do you know working conditions I am under? Do you know if it was even me, or if it was just an example I made up just like the examples you threw out? No, No, no.
Did you specify any of this? Did you say it was you? Am i psychic and thus able to tell this with telepathy? No, no, no.
Why not be clearer then, hmm? Is it you? What stress are you under?
Don't worry, once you work somewhere that treats you like shit
Too late. I work at Burger King.
You'll slack off and join the dark side. Trust me. If you don't, then you're just hurting yourself. On the other hand, if you work somewhere that pays well and treats you well, you should work hard.
I find that mentality troubling. Sorry i dont find "they were mean" to be justification for not completing a job on time. "I was unable to because of x-logical explanation" is justified though.
Wrong. You said "always better to just be honest." To be is a verb. To be means doing something to be honest, which means telling the truth. Always means no matter what.
And what does better mean?
Your command of the English language stinks, as I see you make repeated errors such as your/you're and refusal to add apostrophes and so on. I have a few too, but they're typos. You have some mass errors, including failing to capitalize some sentences, something which a native English speaker would probably not do. If you're dyslexic that's fine.
Mildly yes. Or so i've been told. I admit i make some mistakes, i dont check every single letter and every post, i just try to adress points and answer posts as best i can. I wasnt schooling you on the English language i was pointing out you're missing several key points in what i said to read into things that i dont mean, and even after i clear up what i mean, you continue to say "Well cause the forum says this" like that is a valid argument. That does not change what i meant.
Lol you think i'm talking about my age. Jesus.
