In he specific context you presented a secret would not be a lie but If you you withheld information from someone without their knowing it and they were misled as a result of that withheld information to assume something that induced them into entering into an agreement they would otherwise have not entered into had you disclosed that information, then it is a lie and you can call it a secret but its called misrepresentation. You deliberately changed the scenario to indicate you indicated you were withholding info. You did not provide a scenario where you kept your secret a secret using your vasoline vocabulary. Some of us call this attempt at deflection and avoidance cult babblety boo. Yah you have nothing to hide. In your world everyone is happy and consensual as they go around multiple phacking. How glorius.
One of the interesting points of lies and secrets...is that it's possible to reveal said secrets in such a way that they're not believed and when called on them you substitute a plausible story in it's place. A trick I learned as a teenager living with my parents. One night during Holiday Break I was out too late with my friends. We were doing naughty things...the typical off the wall things a bunch of 15 year-olds would do when left to their own devices with no supervision. When I got back and was confronted by my mother, I told her exactly and in lurid detail what we were doing with a smirk on my face indicating that I was pulling her leg. She took the bait and said "What were you REALLY doing?" To which I said that we were at my friend's house on his NES and had just lost track of the time and I was sorry and it wouldn't happen again. My mother said "You're G D right it's not if you don't want to spend the rest of break grounded." I did my part to look chagrined and agreed with her. Got away with it. To that point I could tell you my secret, doing my level best to give you all the lurid and tedious details, most (if not all) would say "Pull the other one, it's got bells on" to which I could say something else in a more plausible way and those people would nod at each other, smug in the assurance that they knew that the first one was pure bull feces... ...and promptly forget it. Or at the very least would repeat it to others saying "Oh and if he tells you about this story...tell him he's full of crap and make him tell the true story. Either way...I'll not have lied and the secret is *technically* out in the open. Not really a secret at that point. So is it a lie? Heck! Is it still a secret under that circumstance?
There are three parts to a secret. That which needs to be hidden, the decision to hide it, and the actions needed to keep it hidden. Withholding information could be considered a secret. But that information is not the lie. Here's a good example of this...Trying to buy a house, we were under contract to take possession of the house when the septic system got installed. Due to the rain, the EPA decided that the property can not sustain a traditional septic system and so deemed that an "experimental system" needed to be put in. A system that would have left us financially responsible for replacing it should it fail, and since it was a holding tank would have left us with a monthly draining fee. Had the realtor withheld that information, it would be misrepresentation. But the information itself...the secret...would not be the lie. The property could not handle a septic system, the EPA recommends an experimental holding tank system...none of that is the lie. The lie, the misrepresentation stems from the third part of the secret...the actions to keep the secret. To get down to brass tacks...the information is the truth, the decision would have been a betrayal, the withholding of the information *is* a lie of omission. But the secret itself...is not. I did not change the scenario. I told you the scenario. The secret is not a lie. The decision to keep the secret is not a betrayal of anyone nor is it's keeping harming anyone. And what I have said about the secret is all the truth. And some people call this an attempt at making a point by using an example. And what does this have to do with the thread subject of "Are secrets lies?" You might want to look at Rule 5
Actually the better question is Who on this earth CARES what colour my behind is? What is so special about you or me that would make anyone want to look into our private lives? Well that is unless you are interested in learning 10 kinky things you can do with a can opener and a wilted lettuce
I am going to have to disagree with you on this unless you are using the phrase as an idiom. Which, I think is where a lot of people misunderstand the difference between a lie and a secret; idiom use. With all that, at no point here am I attempting to claim that deception can't happen without lies. In fact my very point is that a lie is not necessary for deception. It is a possible tool for deception, to be sure. As can a secret be. That doesn't make the two one in the same. While they can be used simultaneously, they are still two different things.
And I am going to have to counter that disagreement. Merriam Webster describes a lie as... an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer something that misleads or deceives #3 is where lies of omission can occur. If I were to tell most of the truth but leave out a few important details I can completely obscure the actual truth. Say I were to sell a car. I go and say that the car has had regular service. Could even show receipts from the local shop where I have them do said services. But let's say that at it's last service, they report that the suspension is going to need several hundred dollars worth of work within a few months and I omit that bit of information... What I would be doing there is creating a false perception that the car is in good, salable condition. I have, through an omission of an important fact...lied. I told nothing but the truth, but the omission leads to the lie. Going back to "Are secrets lies?" We have the secret. The fact that the suspension is banjaxed. That's not the lie. The decision to keep that fact hidden will lead to a betrayal, and the action to hide the secret is a lie of omission.
Yes you did. Given your frequent typos, I am guessing that "make" = "male" if you meant something other than that, the please enlighten us. Furthermore, your entire rant set has been about one male abusing multiple women.
This is where, I would say, that there is no dispute. But let's look at the other two definitions. This then means that if, due to a typo on a piece of paper, I state that you were 24, when your true age was 42 (don't worry old man, I won't reveal your true age ), I have lied. By this definition then a mirage or illusion is a lie. I don't claim that an omission is not deception. I simply claim that it, in and of itself is not a lie. Same goes for secret. Even more so for a secret. Nor is a secret in and of itself an omission. Claims about the secret, either direct or through omission can be deceiving, or even lies. But lies or omission are two separate things that can be done to a secret.
Then the definition needs to be updated. A mirage is something that happens. It is an effect of physical laws and how the atmosphere under certain conditions can reflect/refract/bend light. It is theorized that the reason that the Titanic Lookouts didn't see the iceberg in time was due to a thermal inversion layer that effectively cloaked the iceberg until it came into range. Sort of how you'll look at a road on a hot day and you'll see a car materialize into view as it gets closer. But that wasn't a lie. The definition needs to be rewritten to include "intent" and an intelligence to make the decision to mislead. This was a mirage with no intelligence behind it. It's not like the Klingons strapped a cloaking device onto a chunk of ice snickering to themselves at the mischief it would cause. Illusions are another matter entirely and whether they're lies or not depend on the intent of the creator of the illusionist. Many magicians will tell you that they're going to put on some spectacular illusions for our entertainment. It's an odd one since they're saying "I'm going to lie to your senses so you can have an enjoyable evening's entertainment." And you also have to consider this point. Language evolves. You and I both watched "Adam Ruins Everything" and saw the episode on how language evolves over the years. Maybe an omission wasn't considered a lie at some point in the past...but the evolution of language has put the phrase "Lies of omission" into common usage. Thus under the situation...lies of omission are lies because that's where lingual evolution has led it.
Oh good going! You just started a new conspiracy theory! As often as I have had to make this argument in many other areas, I concede the point. However, given the animosity that is applied to the term lie, and its variants, I don't have to like it.
No the vocabularydoes not need to be changed because it does not suit some multiple phackers need to reinvent it to justify his narcissistic self interesta.
Here is an easy to understand explanation of what game is being played: https://lifelessons.co/critical-thinking/kafkatrapping/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-flux/201610/9-classic-strategies-manipulative-people I have yet to meet someone who justifies multiple phacking of different people who does not engage in the above. If someone actually believes a multiple phacker does what he does in full open day light, they need a wake up call. If anyone is settling for sharing a phack of the same person they need to ask themselves, is that it? If that is it what does it say about your own sense of self? Is that all you are worth? That's it? Apes, homo sapiens are pack animals. At one point we did have an Alpha male who would do all the multiple phacking while the rest of the males in the pack took on subordinate non breeding roles. This assured survival of the fittest as the most large and strong's offspring would be procreated. Some people still think they are that Alpha male. All I see is an inflammed baboon buttox. I am serious. In baboons the more inflammed your buttox the more likely you are the Alpha male. I prefer certain bird species and wolves. They mate for life. Call me a romantic fool.
Ok...you REALLY need to dial it down a bit. That was too much even for you. That was a joke. Someone mentioned knowing 10 ways of something, jokingly implying some rather bizarre perversions. I replied back jokingly saying “Gee! I only know 7” and Maquiscat answered “You poor sheltered man” If you don’t appreciate the joke...Let. It. Go. Ignore it if you wish. But to attach him for simply playing along with a joke, a bit of levity, a moment of humor in what has become a rather heated argument... That’s getting to be too @#$%ing much.
Oh but language does need to be changed as time passes. It's nothing that anyone does deliberately, it's just the way that language evolves over time. If it did not, then we'd still be talking like a bunch of Victorian Poets stoned out of their gourds at the local opium den. We don't say "Housekeeping around here is basically a frantic scurryfunge where I whelve everything under the coats in the hall closet." Language evolved. Also...if it did not, then we would not have the terms and words that we now currently use. Internet, Website, Email, Facebook, Social Media. Or if it did not, then "Tweet" would still only be a thing that birds do. Language evolves. Now how this has any bearing on the discussion of the term "Lies of Omission" I've no idea and it leaves me a bit befuddled.
What we stated, was to be an example of the subject of "Are secrets lies." You are the one who keeps trying to steer the conversation back to "My opinions on those people who claim to be poly". Look. This thread is for the topic I mentioned above (and you can see at the top of the page, in the URL bar, when you see an alert that you have been quoted...need I go on?). I fail to understand why you keep going off topic. You do not like Poly. We get that. It is painfully apparent what your stated position is. So why in the name of Zeus' budgie smugglers do you keep trying to derail this thread? Especially since Maquiscat has created a thread especially meant for such discussion and is more than willing to go a few rounds in the debate ring with you over the subject.
Oh bollocks! I forgot to link the thread that Maquiscat created. I can be such an addlepate at times. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/poly-life.585740/
I saw a video Sunday about trust in Google produced in Australia. It is not merely them but where there at traffic signals, you are tracked. It is done due to your Cell phone having GPS. Stores there watch customers and follow their moves. They of course are interested in two things. Are you stealing and what do you purchase. We are not told of this and it was computer techs and IT people bringing this to our attention. It is not me learning about you, it is your government has the ability to follow your movements and perhaps the cell phone is allowing them to record for 5 years what you said even when not on a call to anybody.
The context of the person who placed 24 down in place of 42 is irrelevant, because we are making the example of the person who subsequently read the false information and took it to be true since nothing indicated otherwise. By the definitions presented by Skruddge, this would make the reader, as opposed or in addition to the writer, a liar, i.e. one who told a lie. Yet there is no actual deception there on the part of the reader in passing on the information, false as it is, because he does not know it is false.[/QUOTE]
I have not gone off topic-I responded directly to what you stated. Many of my reponses have been be deleted so I have to now be careful now as to what I say to you or risk more deletions. For the above reason and the continuing choice of words and tone you use in your responses to all those who disagree with you I do not believe you demonstrate you can take in what you dish out, in fact just the exact opposite. Yes I do believe you continyue to show a double standard in complaining about things you dish out but will not take in responses. That said my intent in responses was to show contempt for any words that condone manipulation of truth and sex which I have done. I will not respond further other than the above clarification as its obvious if I respond you will complain its a personal attack. So I will now continue to put you on hold. My clarification as a courtesy to those who disagree with you on the thread as to why I am now silent. So yes I reject your pose in the above response as being reasonable and yes I clearly reject your and have utmost contempt for your advocacy of a lifestyle that engages in multiple sexual relations at the same time for reasons I have explained. I also stated the attempts to engage in double speak to try rationalizing misrepresentations is transparent, manipulative and anti-social. I also continue to reject your tone to other posters which led me to using the same with you two. The best I can now do is ignore this thread like many others. What is clear to me is you won't debate when people disagree with you and use a tone against others you do not like against yourself in responses not that this surprises me. However I will not respond further to avoid the moderator getting more complaints. My intent was to call you two out, no more, no less.
Also for the record I 100% apologize to any thread readers. My intent was not to rerail the thread or deliberately insult just strongly challenge words. I do appreciate the complaints leading to any moderation and apologize for my precipating them. I tak 100% responsibility.
That is debatable in of itself. While yes you did respond to *something* I had said...what you responded to had little to no bearing on the subject “Are secrets lies?” You were responding to what I said as if the subject was regarding non-traditional relationships. But why did you feel the need to “call the two of us out”? Which is interesting since you’ve accused us of being sock puppet accounts of the same person and have also addressed as if we were in fact two different people. That aside, there is a way you could have called us out regarding your feelings towards non-standard relationships and marriages. You could have started another thread and tagged the two os us in it. On its own thread, Maq and I would have happily discussed our viewpoints and would have gone head to head (with invitations to other members to join) on a Ethical Non-Monogamy vs Poly is evil discussion. Here however...it’s “Are secrets lies” and my mentioning Poly had little to do with it directly. It was mentioned in passing and you’re the one who fixated on it and saying some rather unkind things about us in the process. But if you want to ignore it and us...feel free.
Secrets can be lies, but are lies necessarily bad? I don't think they always are. I think it is a wonderful thing to lie sometimes. ... or do I?
