3 ms·

>There is value in a leader who lies – but only if it is done for the greater good. Nope. I finished reading the article here. You can't actually make this arg

>There is value in a leader who lies – but only if it is done for the greater good. Nope. I finished reading the article here. You can't actually make this argument for greater good because I can't tell if you are lying to suggest there's any greater good. As a self-professed liar, that may be a lie. Is the lie that you only tell white lies or do you tell bigger lies? I don't know. One of the identifiable problems in society has been the move away from 'thou shall not lie' I'm not saying 'go be christian' but rather that's one of their values that you shouldn't throw out. World religions tend to agree no lying allowed. Sam Harris' book on lying, written as an atheist, comes to the same conclusions.

mdp2021 5y ago
> I finished reading the article here So basically you stopped at the subtitle, which makes it dubious that you got the context. The author is an historian and is not argumenting but presenting. > World religions tend to agree[:] no lying allowed There is at least one major exception, the details out of appropriate place here, but again in a statement that some responsibilities imply managing, as opposed to informing with frank cold mindless detail. And in fact, looking for words for these statements, one sees that 'informing' is kind of crucial because with refined instruments you give form more easily and properly than with a mallet, which could deform or break. And in fact, the same religions also agree to "no violence allowed", some bring it to topic even before the "truthfulness" bit. But since, explicitly, there exists violent truth, things are actually some bit complex and this is valid even for those of us "who consider liars as lowlife and lying the most undignifying stain". The said «agree[d]» message is more like, "you are mandated to the fullest, radical, absolute truthfulness inside: no shade of false should enter your being (which would be poison)". Managing situations intelligently, that is another matter. Concepts are pretty subtle there, since the very shade of lying remains uttermost filth. Some use 'cunningness' for filthy instrumentality, so maybe you could use 'prudence', similarly to Pontano, to express performing one's duties with honest and clean and yet mature discrimination.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >So basically you stopped at the subtitle, which makes it dubious that you got the context. The author is an historian and is not argumenting but presenting. I stopped where I stopped. I don't even know if I can believe they are a historian. They think lying is allowed. Is the greater good allowing them to lie about being a historian so they can make their case?
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > They think lying is allowed No, not necessarily. He may be just a bad writer. Or the title may have been written by editors. A piece about a warmonger subtitled 'Kill them all' may use rhetoric clumsily, refer to an poorly-identified audience and/or omit quotes and other rhetoric indicators, and does not mean that the author of the piece subscribes to that point of view - it may be a shout intending to represent, or give an idea, or be ironic about, the point of view of the subject, or of his commentors, or other references. Edit: to admit inadequate representations into the representational world amounts to lying... Ideas have to be fitting facts adequately.
    - incomingpain 5y ago
      >No, not necessarily. He may be just a bad writer. Or the title may have been written by editors. That's a poor argument to convince someone to read the article.
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        I am very certainly not trying to convince you to read the article: I have told you that your statement about what that author thinks has weak grounds. I will also tell you here that you should not make statements about material you have not really considered. Taking a sentence out of context is a good recipe for misinterpreting it. This is no language that makes isolated pieces autonomous with any guarantee. Language is there for the recipient to understand it, actively.

mdp2021 5y ago

> I finished reading the article here So basically you stopped at the subtitle, which makes it dubious that you got the context. The author is an historian and is not argumenting but presenting. > World religions tend to agree[:] no lying allowed There is at least one major exception, the details out of appropriate place here, but again in a statement that some responsibilities imply managing, as opposed to informing with frank cold mindless detail. And in fact, looking for words for these statements, one sees that 'informing' is kind of crucial because with refined instruments you give form more easily and properly than with a mallet, which could deform or break. And in fact, the same religions also agree to "no violence allowed", some bring it to topic even before the "truthfulness" bit. But since, explicitly, there exists violent truth, things are actually some bit complex and this is valid even for those of us "who consider liars as lowlife and lying the most undignifying stain". The said «agree[d]» message is more like, "you are mandated to the fullest, radical, absolute truthfulness inside: no shade of false should enter your being (which would be poison)". Managing situations intelligently, that is another matter. Concepts are pretty subtle there, since the very shade of lying remains uttermost filth. Some use 'cunningness' for filthy instrumentality, so maybe you could use 'prudence', similarly to Pontano, to express performing one's duties with honest and clean and yet mature discrimination.

incomingpain 5y ago
>So basically you stopped at the subtitle, which makes it dubious that you got the context. The author is an historian and is not argumenting but presenting. I stopped where I stopped. I don't even know if I can believe they are a historian. They think lying is allowed. Is the greater good allowing them to lie about being a historian so they can make their case?
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > They think lying is allowed No, not necessarily. He may be just a bad writer. Or the title may have been written by editors. A piece about a warmonger subtitled 'Kill them all' may use rhetoric clumsily, refer to an poorly-identified audience and/or omit quotes and other rhetoric indicators, and does not mean that the author of the piece subscribes to that point of view - it may be a shout intending to represent, or give an idea, or be ironic about, the point of view of the subject, or of his commentors, or other references. Edit: to admit inadequate representations into the representational world amounts to lying... Ideas have to be fitting facts adequately.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >No, not necessarily. He may be just a bad writer. Or the title may have been written by editors. That's a poor argument to convince someone to read the article.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      I am very certainly not trying to convince you to read the article: I have told you that your statement about what that author thinks has weak grounds. I will also tell you here that you should not make statements about material you have not really considered. Taking a sentence out of context is a good recipe for misinterpreting it. This is no language that makes isolated pieces autonomous with any guarantee. Language is there for the recipient to understand it, actively.