Doesn't make it any more true. It's lies all over. If you lie about stuff long enough until something happens that supports what you say(especially if that was premeditated) guess what? You still lied about stuff up until that point. After that, you can truthfully say those same things(even if you arranged them) but right up until that point you lie. simple as that.
because it would never become true without his interaction.
If the US, after the war, had smuggled weapons of mass destruction into iraq, claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is no more true.
If you cause what you claim, it's still all lies up to the moment it actually happens.
Think about it like this: With the weather, you have no influence. So the better analogy would be saying:"It's going to rain really soon!" over and over again. It's all lies, with the sun shining for the next 5 days, even IF eventually it will rain at some time, making it come true at that moment.
it's just a mental jerkoff-exercise of making oneself feel better about lying. If you are that ruthless, just admit you're lying to achieve your ends from the beginning. *shrug* (you of course being your theoretical person, not you personally)
How did the man cause it tho? As I told dom everything was in Group X's hands. Everything was up to them all along. They could have just as easily said, "You know, we disagree with him but we're not gonna stoop that low"
I appreciate the rest of your comment but I feel its sadly irrelevant. What does Iraq have to do with this?
And how is he ruthless for trying to get rid of people he fears are evil?
By the same standard, wouldn't you be evil for getting rid of thieves and criminals? How ruthless of you!
and that first part is why he lied. He had no sure way to predict that outcome. It was dependent on others. Claiming that outcome as something set in stone is a lie.
Claiming it's a possibility would be fine, but again, would be dependent on the people. If "group x" was peaceful anti-violence people, there's no real option of this happening no matter how much he tries to agitate them.
Claiming something as true while you can't influence it does not make your claim and more true if by CHANCE it becomes true. Up to the point it does, it's poor speculation and claiming otherwise is lying.
Justice outside the moral good
← View full post
"The winner writes history"
Doesn't make it any more true. It's lies all over. If you lie about stuff long enough until something happens that supports what you say(especially if that was premeditated) guess what? You still lied about stuff up until that point. After that, you can truthfully say those same things(even if you arranged them) but right up until that point you lie. simple as that.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I still don't see how it was a lie if what he said came true.
It's like me saying, "Tomorrow it's going to rain!!" when today it's sunny.
If tomorrow it rains, how did I lie?
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
because it would never become true without his interaction.
If the US, after the war, had smuggled weapons of mass destruction into iraq, claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is no more true.
If you cause what you claim, it's still all lies up to the moment it actually happens.
Think about it like this: With the weather, you have no influence. So the better analogy would be saying:"It's going to rain really soon!" over and over again. It's all lies, with the sun shining for the next 5 days, even IF eventually it will rain at some time, making it come true at that moment.
it's just a mental jerkoff-exercise of making oneself feel better about lying. If you are that ruthless, just admit you're lying to achieve your ends from the beginning. *shrug* (you of course being your theoretical person, not you personally)
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How did the man cause it tho? As I told dom everything was in Group X's hands. Everything was up to them all along. They could have just as easily said, "You know, we disagree with him but we're not gonna stoop that low"
I appreciate the rest of your comment but I feel its sadly irrelevant. What does Iraq have to do with this?
And how is he ruthless for trying to get rid of people he fears are evil?
By the same standard, wouldn't you be evil for getting rid of thieves and criminals? How ruthless of you!
--
TerryVie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
and that first part is why he lied. He had no sure way to predict that outcome. It was dependent on others. Claiming that outcome as something set in stone is a lie.
Claiming it's a possibility would be fine, but again, would be dependent on the people. If "group x" was peaceful anti-violence people, there's no real option of this happening no matter how much he tries to agitate them.
Claiming something as true while you can't influence it does not make your claim and more true if by CHANCE it becomes true. Up to the point it does, it's poor speculation and claiming otherwise is lying.