Is a "lie of omission" dishonest?

Is lying by omission still dishonest?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
K

Kittamaru

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.
Valued Senior Member
Simple question - is lying via omission of fact dishonest?
 
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.
 
Kittamaru said:
Simple question - is lying via omission of fact dishonest?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

billvon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course - omitting superfluous details is not dishonest. Omitting details directly pertinent to the debate at hand, however...
 
Kittamaru said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
billvon said:
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)
Click to expand...

Omitting/refusing to acknowledge facts that refute things that were previously said wouldn't be considered dishonest?
 
Kittamaru said:
Omitting/refusing to acknowledge facts that refute things that were previously said wouldn't be considered dishonest?
Click to expand...
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.
 
billvon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Kittamaru said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
If you do it with the intent to deceive, then obviously it's dishonest.
 
Kittamaru said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not if he didn't believe person B.
 
Daecon said:
So, deliberately ignoring contrary evidence, then? ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top