Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[Thanos:] Can you please point out the "lie" in the comments above? Kristin's only statement of fact . . .

[Martin:] Oh, really? Skipping . . .

Says the guy who chopped off the last half, and context, of the sentence:

"...regarding what you said was:"

So this would read: "Can you please point out the "lie" in the comments above? Kristin's only statement of fact regarding what you said was:"

Not to mention the rest of the quote which is specifically what the sentence is reffering to, so restored would read:

Quote

Can you please point out the "lie" in the comments above? Kristin's only statement of fact regarding what you said was:

"You said I asked an authoritarian question..."

Referring to your earlier comment to her:

"A question whose assumptions are authoritarian".

I fail to see where it is a lie or dishonest to characterize what you said to mean the question itself is authoritarian as it is hardly a stretch to say the question is authoritarian if it is based on authoritarian assumptions.

And by chopping the sentence in half and omitting the rest, you remove its context and intent then apply it to the comments below which you know was not the intended target yet as you have edited it gives the impression it was. I find this problematic.

> > "...you respond with snobbishness."
> >
> > An opinion, probably shared by others, not a
> lie.

> Presented as a statement of fact.

> Failed
> mindreading. She certainly does not know my inner
> state when I responded and she certainly has
> misrepresented the register of my response.

But you know that she is not required to and that it is not a "lie" to mistake the nature of someone's intention. This happens every second of the day and is part and parcel of the human condition. If she believes it to be true then to her it is a "fact" and just because she may or may not have unwittingly misinterpreted your intent does not therefore mean she is "lying". Again the lie would be to say that you are being "snobbish" when in fact she did not think you were, but said it anyways. She can speak for herself, but I do not think this is the case and do not know her to have a history of such in the least. Do you have a history of being "snobbish" or a "jerk"? Nah. Me? I am the nicest and most pleasant contributor on these boards. A ray of sunshine in a dark world.

> > "...and you respond by being a jerk."
> >
> > An opinion, probably shared by others, not a
> lie.

> Presented as a statement of fact and again
> misrepresenting the character of my response.

See above.

> You
> will notice that I refrained from giving my
> opinion of her.

She did not give her opinion of you, but rather her perceived nature of your responses. What you said of her:

Now you’re merely lying (and how quickly we’ve reached this point).

So much for your principles.

So much for your ability.


You option of her would appear to be one that she is someone quick to devolve into lying during a debate. That her principles are to be questioned as well as her ability.

> (I accept your assurance as to
> her gender, into which I have not enquired.)

Kristin has over 23,000 posts. To do her the courtesy of reading them once in a while it would not be necessary to "inquire" even if the handle "Aine" and given name "Kristin" were not enough of a tip off.

> > "I doubt you have the capacity to debate
> the
> > evidence anyway."
> >
> > An opinion, not a lie.
>
> A statement of presumable fact regarding her inner
> life—autobiography—but then, like others, she
> uses autobiography to insinuate what she does not
> state openly.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but no. Right or wrong, she is drawing from experience of reading your posts and as such is stereotyping you as someone who she believes would behave this way. Regardless, again, expressing doubt is not a lie unless it is not given honestly.

> > "So you're just close minded, apathetic
> and
> > incapable of separating the wheat from
> the
> > chaff."
> >
> > Unless you are claiming she does not actually
> > believe this statement but is saying it
> anyways,
> > an opinion, not a lie.
>
> What she believes is neither here nor there. What
> counts is what she knows and does not know. She
> certainly does not have the warrant of knowledge
> for stating this as a truth—and, unless
> something is very wrong, she knows that she does
> not know. Lie.

I am certain you do not actually believe this. Unless you believe she has purposefully mischaracterized your intent, there is no lie even if her conclusion is mistaken.

> You will understand my saying at this point that I
> see no point in continuing this.

Nor I.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jul-19 15:19 by Thanos5150.