Tuesday, July 19, 2011

gutless lying wimps (mung/ilion)

My responses are in bold type.




6:47 pm

Mung: “Do you believe it is possible for someone to perpetuate a lie without knowing it’s a lie? I do. Does that make it less of a lie?”

Or, to put it another way, had Seinfeld’s George Constanza discovered a loophole in the general prohibition against lying (*) when he counseled/rationalized, “It’s not a lie if you really believe it”?

One has an obligation to have done “due diligence” regarding the things one asserts; one has the obligation to have proper rational warrant for believing what one believes and especially regarding what one asserts.

Well, troy d. hailey, you certainly haven't fulfilled your "obligation", and neither have your fellow IDiots.

Thus, even if one “totally believes” something but hasn’t the rational warrant for believing it, one may indeed lie in asserting it – even if the belief is objectively true.

Since your beliefs, and those of your fellow IDiots, are not objectively true (they're not even objectively testable), and since you have no reasonable warrant for believing them, and since you constantly and willfully assert absolute crap, you're a liar, and so is mung-boi.

Isn’t it curious, the things one can learn, if one thinks carefully about what one already knows?

First you have to know something, which you obviously don't.

Equally curious will be the reaction to the above by persons who do not wish to understand it.

And you and mung are two of those persons.

(*) Not every act of lying is immoral; sometimes, morality *requires* one to lie: the famous test case being the Nazis-at-the-door looking for the person(s) you have conspired to hid from them.

IDiots, and other religious zombies, always have lame excuses for their lies, because they never accept that they are lying, even though their entire thought process and life are based on and driven by lies.

Hey troy, what's it like being a sanctimonious, cowardly, uneducated eunuch, and why aren't you and mung and the other IDiots chastising thomas cudworth for lying about Eugenie Scott? After all, isn't he 'obligated' to have done “due diligence” regarding the things he asserts before erroneously accusing her of literally flying into a rage?