In a recent thread on BNR, yours truly told the CM he was arguing with, that they were telling lies. In response to this accusation, they stated that they “can’t be lying about [Wombosi] as [he] claim[s],” because “[a] lie is an intentional misrepresentation of a fact” and that they “have never spoken to [Wombosi] before so [they] did not know what [he] think[s] or believe[s] enough to actually LIE about [him].”
Though Wombosi will not go into details, as they are meaningless to the discussion here, let us just say that the person made a statement about bias that they then were unable/unwilling to substantiate.
In other words: Their argument is, that anything a person would assert about another person’s bias cannot be a lie, if they do not know whether the bias they were asserting is actually existent or not.
Now, besides the obvious flaw in that train of thought, that is that if you do not know anything about a thing/person, you should probably not talk about it/them, there is also the issue of whether this is definitionally a lie, regardless.
Here is the way Wombsosi and many others see it…
Stating something as a fact when it is actually unknown is definitionally a lie because it involves presenting information as true when the speaker knows or should know that they do not have sufficient evidence to make that claim. A lie is defined as a false statement made with the intent to deceive. When someone asserts something as a fact, they are implying that it is true and certain. If they do not actually know it to be true, they are misleading others by giving a false impression of certainty and accuracy. This deception, whether intentional or due to reckless disregard for the truth, constitutes a lie.
What do you think? Is it a lie to state something you admit to not know as fact? Explain why/how, if your explanation differs from that above.
Happy hump day to all… 🙂