Is It OK to Lie on Gather?

I do encourage members not to violate existing laws.

WTH? You took all the fun out of it.

I only said "encourage." :)

Then let the good times roll!

Nippy

I am shocked, shocked at this post. You actually condone lying??? I myself have never told a lie in my life (well, except for that one) and I would certainly not think of doing so on a site of such high integrity as Gather.

On the other hand, there are number of writers on this site, and writers sometimes write fiction, which is not exactly true, so.... maybe it is OK to be a bit creative, at times. Yeah, just stretch things a little. Maybe I will try it.

Of course. Lying in the pursuit of profit is no vice.

Lying is apparently rewarded with cash here at the G for the sake of wind-breaking news. We could all get rich by eating beans and farting on our keyboards now!

It takes a SkyWriter™ to know which way the idiot wind blows. And it blows! (with dual apologies to Dylan)

The "wind blows" reference reminds me of the worst thing to come out of the movie "Don't Look Back" where Dylan sings "Subterranean Homesick Blues" standing next to an easel with the lyrics on pieces of cardboard. He pulls the off the easel as he gets to the end of the card.

On "Good Morning America" they solicit user videos where people hold up signs with parts of a drippy sentiment on them one at a time. Yup, Gresham's Law. :)

The other half of my dual apology was for Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks" cut, "Idiot Wind," whose lyrics are a bit edgy:

"Someone’s got it in for me, they’re planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out but when they will I can only guess...

"Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth
Blowing down the backroads headin’ south
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
You’re an idiot, babe
It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe..."

No lies are protected speech where I'm concerned. I will point and laugh and think very little of anyone one who lies for any reason, especially about topics that are important, like whether or not your are pregnant with Ted Nugent's love child.

They're certainly not protected from ridicule and/or refudiation. :) I don't think they should be illegal since I don't trust anyone to decide what's true or false for me without letting me see the original statement.

I didn't know Ted was capable of fathering a "love child."

Am I really pregnant with Justin Bieber's offspring?

Frog + Bieber = HORRORS UNTOLD. Or, from the Ray Stevens song Erik The Awful, "His mother named him Erik 'cause she couldn't spell AAAAGGGGHHH!!!"

The transcendent lie is a concept to which I'm quite attracted. It could be a movie, perhaps titled "The Meme that Ate Cleveland," complete with a flaming, chemical-choked Lake Erie. These lies are built and usually evolve, taking on a life of their own, to satisfy the distance between this prejudice and that fact, way over there. Celebredreck fills the chasm between one's sorry-ass life and the obscure "real lives" of the rich and famous, animating the lifeless pixels with the appropriate vivid daydreams. Transcendent political lies place the stand-in marionettes of the imagination in the appropriate roles to fulfill our darkest impulses.

(There's this black guy... This guy cheated about his nationality, cheated to get into school, cheated on the requirements for scholarship, cheated in his business dealings, cheated to obtain political power, cheated about his fitness for higher office, cheated on his commitment to his religion, cheated on his commitments to the people, cheated on his constitutional responsibilities, cheated on his wife—with some gay dude... and is cheating our grandchildren. Transcendent!)

It's a concept related to what I call the assigned cause, endemic among those who use the phrase "that's how this hooks into it," which invariably makes me shudder. The concept is employed daily when the market closes—you know, "stocks closed lower on jitters about Spain's economic crisis." We set people up with it—"Sheesh, takes a homosexual to defend a homosexual." "You want the government running healthcare because you're a totalitarian!" It's so easy! Now that we've talked about these techniques, I expect to see them on upcoming threads. Wait—as you said, Nippy—the site's already littered with this crap.

(Quite a straw man collection ya got there, Dave ; )

Tee hee. There's no attribution, John. You did notice that, right?

Of course, Dave, that's how the straw man game is played.

Nippy, have you submitted this post to GatherNonNewsâ„¢? I think we may have a developing non-story! A straw man fallacy is the misrepresentation of an argument (the position of "Person A" in the link). My comment does not contain an attribution of the position to any such Person A. Therefore it's not a straw man argument. QED.

I said straw man game, Dave.

Ah, the private lexicon of the aspiring demagogue. Let's discard words with known meaning and ignore the truth value of statements and go after the purported bent of the speaker with a "special" word. The GWB administration, after casting about for the slight rotation that could balloon into a transcendent lie, came up with Islamofascism. It suited the anti-Islamic bigots just fine, and was defensible from the objections of those who wouldn't accept that America was at war with Islam. Get us quickly past facts and accountability and into ad hominems. It helps us forget the facts when they hurt.

"Let's discard words with known meaning and ignore the truth value of statements and go after the purported bent of the speaker with a "special" word."

Let's not, I say.

"The GWB administration, after casting about for the slight rotation that could balloon into a transcendent lie, came up with Islamofascism."

You used the phrase "casting about for . . . " there, and that's what I am similarly characterizing as playing "the straw man game".

From the Wiki;

The origins of the term are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw which is easily knocked down or destroyed, such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy.[3] The rhetorical technique is sometimes called an Aunt Sally in the UK, with reference to a traditional fairground game in which objects are thrown at a fixed target. One common (folk) etymology is that it refers to men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness.

You copied from the Wiki "Straw man" page: "This article is about the logical fallacy." Your use of the term was dismissed, JK. Move on.

"Cast about" is a verb phrase that means "search far and wide." You knew that, right? You're joking now, right? Funny man. Take care.

I like the idea of "transcendent." It's bigger than "Big." :)

I haven't submitted it to Non News. I ought to.

No, I will not move on, mind police officer Dave ; )

"You copied from the Wiki "Straw man" page: "This article is about the logical fallacy."

I sure did, but I copied from the 'Origin" section. That section is not about the logical fallacy itself, but the term 'straw man'. (As is the article, obviously, the title being 'Straw Man')


" "Cast about" is a verb phrase that means "search far and wide." You knew that, right?"

Of course, Dave, that's how the straw man game is played.

The reader will note I hope, how reticent Dave is to enter into a meaningful dialog about these matters, and how anxious he is to hurl insults and to "personalize" the discussion. I am cast as the ignorant little nobody, while he casts himself by implication as the big deal expert, the teacher reprimanding an out of line student, essentially, and he dare not discuss this matter without those "straw men" firmly in place, I surmise.

So, let's pretend Dave is not a total lightweight, and has the intellectual/ethical balls to act like an adult, discussing something with another adult, shall we?

Pretend Dave asks the obvious questions; *What do you mean by "the straw man game", John? And what is it about my original comment that leads you to believe I might be playing it?*

"What do you mean by "the straw man game", John?"

I mean the setting up of a straw man, a hypothetical person, that is easy to despise and attack, for his hateful/bigoted views. Like the "Islamofascist" menace you mentioned, that the neocons/neolibs set up, to justify all manner of violent aggression, and police state laws and systems. Those who questioned the wars of aggression or the alienating of our Constitutionally guaranteed unalianable rights, could then be cast as defenders/allies of the Islamofascist straw man. "Terrorist sympathizers", being an obvious example of how this particular version of the game was played out.

".. what is it about my original comment that leads you to believe I might be playing it?"

Several things, some subtle, but this part is fairly easy to see;

"(There's this black guy... This guy cheated about his nationality, cheated to get into school, cheated on the requirements for scholarship, cheated in his business dealings, cheated to obtain political power, cheated about his fitness for higher office, cheated on his commitment to his religion, cheated on his commitments to the people, cheated on his constitutional responsibilities, cheated on his wife—with some gay dude... and is cheating our grandchildren."

You set up a straw man, a hypothetical "anti-black" racist bigot, by noting the "race" of the President first, implying that his "race" is somehow relevant to any and all questioning of his honesty/ethics ("cheating"), so that those who might question, can be cast as defenders/allies of the "anti-black"racist bigot straw man.

Same game, same; stifle serious questioning through threat of association with an easy to despise and attack straw man, object to the game. You didn't initiate it, you fell for it, and imitate it, just as those who fell for and imitated the game the neocons/neolibs initiated did, I believe.

The straw man fallacy aspect involves a false "given", an implied/ insinuated premise, than sort of floats along indefinitely; The cause of this question arising is a desire to help the bad guys. The motivation behind this question is to undermine the good guys. The intent of this question is to further an evil agenda. Etc. etc. etc. Evidence becomes superfluous, the "floating given" renders even examining the evidence an act of conspiratorial subterfuge, a thought crime.

Any and all questioning is sort of lumped together, as though it were simply impossible that anyone could rightly question anything the saintly/heroic champion of justice did or does. A form of hero worship, a cult of personality mind-trap. "Those people just hate him", is repeated in various forms, ad infinitum.

I think you are close to having the concept of a "transcendent lie" that I started with, JK. You haven't caught on that the entire example that has you buzzing and whirring is in the hypothetical; I could have said "there's that guy from Harvard" or "there's that socialist that 'totalitarians' like" or any sort of biased viewpoint. And for that matter, I could have chosen any number of targets. But yes, then a narrative is constructed and the various supposed negative attributes are lined up on a shelf in a sort of myth-building exercise. You're close to getting it. Good work!

Yes, it's OK to lie on Gather.

Exactly.

I disagree.

No, it's not OK to lie on Gather.

Precisely.

You are shockingly wrong.

Make up my mind, damn it!

I agree with everything that's been said.

How would the guy standing next to you answer the question? :)

Correct attitude Dave. My point exactly.

Dave's lying again.

I was given to understand that prevarication was ok on this thread, but that may have been a lie.

Mark Twain wrote a short piece on lying. It was mostly about white lies and their social utility. He wasn't very big on lies of the magnitude of Obamacare Death Panels though. My mother's favorite among the more obscure stuff Clemens wrote was his book on Christian Science. He didn't consider it a white lie. :)

You may be referring to On The Decay Of The Art Of Lying, his 1885 address to the Historical and Antiquarian Society of Hartford, which is incredibly funny but instructive.

IIRC there was a short story about a young man who gave up lying. It didn't work well for him. :)