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 this comment's parent
← View full post
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.