Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Kittamaru, Sep 3, 2015.
Simple question - is lying via omission of fact dishonest?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There is no simple answer. It depends on the context. In some cases it would be VERY dishonest and in other cases it may be information that the other person doesn't need to know or doesn't even have a right to know or the info isn't pertinent. It just depends.
If it is relevant and known and still left out, yep, it's totally dishonest in my opinion.
Depends. If you ask about MPPT charge controllers and I just give you a very simplified description, omitting most of the facts I know, it's not dishonest. If that omission is intended to deliberately cause a misunderstanding, then it would be.
I apologize - I should have been more specific. The context of this is with regards to intentionally ignoring or omitting facts about a topic during debate/discussion that, upon acknowledging, would weaken the persons position.
Of course - omitting superfluous details is not dishonest. Omitting details directly pertinent to the debate at hand, however...
Well, you've said two different things here. One is intentionally omitting facts to deceive the other person. (Dishonest) The other is intentionally omitting facts the other person is already aware of, or refusing to acknowledge things. (Not dishonest)
Omitting/refusing to acknowledge facts that refute things that were previously said wouldn't be considered dishonest?
No, not if they have been previously presented.
For example, if you said "all cats are good mouse hunters" and someone demanded you repeat that after he found an example of a lazy cat, your refusal to do so would not be dishonest.
Ah, okay - sorry, I think I was unclear again.
To use your example:
If Person A said that "all cats are good mouse hunters", and person B presented evidence of a lazy cat...
Then Person A knowingly ignored said evidence and again presented "all cats are good mouse hunters" as fact
Is Person A being dishonest?
No..a lazy cat may be lazy precisely BECAUSE he is such a good mouse hunter that he never has to do much during the day after eating mice all night. What you are calling a fact is in fact just an interpretation of a fact, which may be ignored for many reasons not the least of which is that it is simply irrelevant to the OP. Posters have the right to ignore anyone at any time here.
I'd like a ruling on that, from a mod or admin.
You never heard of the ignore button?
I'm not asking you. Can't you read? I'm asking a mod or admin.
Then you're ignoring me? You've just answered your own question.
I can see why members don't like you or your posts or your posting style. I just met you and already I don't like you.
Wow. I'll really lose sleep over THAT tonight...lol!
If you do it with the intent to deceive, then obviously it's dishonest.
Not if he didn't believe person B.
So, deliberately ignoring contrary evidence, then? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. If I said "all cats are felines" and person B said "here is PROOF that Kit Kats are candy and not felines, and Hobie Cats are sailboats!" then I might deliberately ignore them, even if they have contrary evidence.
Separate names with a comma.