5 ms·

Playing on people's inferences (which is different from implying) is a common tactic of the abusive.

tshaddox 5y ago
That’s also just what “lying” means. If you make a claim with the intention of deceiving someone that claim is a lie. It’s not like English is a formal language where you can say “ah but my statement technically passed the ‘Truth compiler’ so it’s not technically a lie.”
- mthoms 5y ago
  Similarly, I like to say something along the lines of "lies by omission are still lies".
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  The recent season 1 of the Wheel of Time television show reminded me of how the Aes Sedai are magically bound "To speak no word that is not true". Of course, they're all master manipulators, ironically able to lie better than the common people because they can leverage that apparent veneer of truthfulness to deceive even more completely.
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  It's funny how this is actually how laws and official paperwork works. It is very important to look at every single word. And I don't think you are correct in saying that it is lying. It actually objectively isn't. And whether you'd argue it is or isn't very likely depends on which side of it you are on. Of course when reading over it in the regular fast way of reading through the comments, one might think there is a contradiction, because you said there would be one and so we read it that way. But there really isn't. It's an evasive manoeuvre. Of course they know what you're asking and they specifically do not want to lie and so they choose words you are going to very likely parse in a particular way. If you think about it, is the "there's a contradiction in the following sentence" way of stating this any different/worse/better than the original? I would argue it isn't. Same level just on opposite sides of the argument.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    On the contrary, you can’t deliberately deceive someone in the wording of a contract, and you can’t even induce someone to enter a contract by deliberately deceiving them.
    - tharkun__ 5y ago
      This will always be a question of interpretation. There are a lot of situations (contract or otherwise) where you can say something that might imply something else but you chose your words wisely and 'mean them'. Marketing is full of this for example as well. And it extends to contracts. "Up to 100MBit" in the marketing material as well as the contract. When you complain that you only get 0.5MBit it's basically "buyer beware" because you bought "up to" not "always exactly" 100MBit of connectivity on a shared medium (cable). As long as it's true that the medium actually supports 100MBit there's nothing wrong with this except for it being very deceptive. This kind of thing is all over the place and a lot of people fall for it all the time. And then complain loudly but mostly toothlessly. The internet itself I guess has changed some of this as it's easier for companies to get bad enough publicity out of such things than back in the day but it's doesn't change the underlying facts and mechanics.
  - agentdrtran 5y ago
    Conversations are not legal contracts; if you knowingly and selectively choose your words to give the wrong impression (and abusers are skilled at doing) you are lying.
    - fragbait65 5y ago
      I don't agree. Deceiving and lying are two different things. You are describing somebody being deceptive. You can deceive somebody and still be 100 % truthful.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Conversations can be legal contracts. A verbal contract is a contract. It might be hard to prove that the contract exists, but that doesn't mean that there was no agreement.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Playing on people's inferences (which is different from implying) No, it's not. Making an utterance with the intent of someone else inferring a particular thing from it is implying that thing.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  It's certainly different than logical implication, but "imply" in common English does not mean logical implication.

That’s also just what “lying” means. If you make a claim with the intention of deceiving someone that claim is a lie. It’s not like English is a formal language where you can say “ah but my statement technically passed the ‘Truth compiler’ so it’s not technically a lie.”

mthoms 5y ago
Similarly, I like to say something along the lines of "lies by omission are still lies".
jiggawatts 5y ago
The recent season 1 of the Wheel of Time television show reminded me of how the Aes Sedai are magically bound "To speak no word that is not true". Of course, they're all master manipulators, ironically able to lie better than the common people because they can leverage that apparent veneer of truthfulness to deceive even more completely.
tharkun__ 5y ago
It's funny how this is actually how laws and official paperwork works. It is very important to look at every single word. And I don't think you are correct in saying that it is lying. It actually objectively isn't. And whether you'd argue it is or isn't very likely depends on which side of it you are on. Of course when reading over it in the regular fast way of reading through the comments, one might think there is a contradiction, because you said there would be one and so we read it that way. But there really isn't. It's an evasive manoeuvre. Of course they know what you're asking and they specifically do not want to lie and so they choose words you are going to very likely parse in a particular way. If you think about it, is the "there's a contradiction in the following sentence" way of stating this any different/worse/better than the original? I would argue it isn't. Same level just on opposite sides of the argument.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  On the contrary, you can’t deliberately deceive someone in the wording of a contract, and you can’t even induce someone to enter a contract by deliberately deceiving them.
  - tharkun__ 5y ago
    This will always be a question of interpretation. There are a lot of situations (contract or otherwise) where you can say something that might imply something else but you chose your words wisely and 'mean them'. Marketing is full of this for example as well. And it extends to contracts. "Up to 100MBit" in the marketing material as well as the contract. When you complain that you only get 0.5MBit it's basically "buyer beware" because you bought "up to" not "always exactly" 100MBit of connectivity on a shared medium (cable). As long as it's true that the medium actually supports 100MBit there's nothing wrong with this except for it being very deceptive. This kind of thing is all over the place and a lot of people fall for it all the time. And then complain loudly but mostly toothlessly. The internet itself I guess has changed some of this as it's easier for companies to get bad enough publicity out of such things than back in the day but it's doesn't change the underlying facts and mechanics.
- agentdrtran 5y ago
  Conversations are not legal contracts; if you knowingly and selectively choose your words to give the wrong impression (and abusers are skilled at doing) you are lying.
  - fragbait65 5y ago
    I don't agree. Deceiving and lying are two different things. You are describing somebody being deceptive. You can deceive somebody and still be 100 % truthful.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Conversations can be legal contracts. A verbal contract is a contract. It might be hard to prove that the contract exists, but that doesn't mean that there was no agreement.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Playing on people's inferences (which is different from implying) No, it's not. Making an utterance with the intent of someone else inferring a particular thing from it is implying that thing.

dllthomas 5y ago
It's certainly different than logical implication, but "imply" in common English does not mean logical implication.