Lying and Implications on a Forum

[machievelli]

In a discussion of facts, lying is hard to pull when you provide sources for your claims. Twisted statements, statistics, that sort of stuff, while misleading, is not really lying. And most people who just say "ZOMG ADSHOIANONFASND!!!!" without backing up their claims are ignored. So, that problem is readily solved.

 

The comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The definition of 'fact' is truth. As an example, I was in a political argument about the ongoing Iraq war with someone and he trotted out the 'the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq' line. I answered with the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) report. He first answered 'it may be fact, but that doesn't make it the truth', then used an opposing editorial written during the Gulf war which used statements taken out of context to 'prove' his claim.

 

To me a twisted statement is a lie. And as for statistics, you can prove anything with them by just using the factors you want to use and ignoring everything else. If you are using it as a sounding board, that is good. But when you hold it up as proof, I prefer cold hard facts.

[vanir]

I've learned myself over time I can get too hooked up in a particular forum. When I start getting too emotional about it, like overly concerned about what other forum members are thinking I found I just need a break for a bit. I'm tying myself up in knots of virtual interaction and what's the point?

If it was a physical interaction, well then they might be wrong or I might be wrong, but on the internet I think it's a matter of when it bothers you, walk away. Why stress? The thing about the internet is people can post without pause, they can be very offensive by simply being arrogant or dismissive towards you personally (I think it's okay to be such about impersonal subject material though I may not do that myself or like it, it's not offensive per se to be ignorant or in turn to be called on that), where in person when you offend someone you see the look of disappointment and the other sees the look of guilt. You can win an argument in person and still lose because you're wrong and you know it, or you're lying and you know it and so does the other party even if they can't word it immediately or in a witty fashion. Witty people can often win arguments when they're completely wrong, usually by tying up the other party in knots. But at least in person it is obvious someone is getting manipulated by argumentative behaviour whereas this takes a severe amount of experience to recognise in correspondance, a desperate reply from someone who knows what they're on about in the face of an argumentative party can easily look like they're the one starting an argument. In person this is far less likely to be the case, because we can all see exactly at which statements you began to flush red, and note that they were in fact a bit harsh and irrelevent, and the smirk on the arguer who achieved this as he spake clearly signifying it was his intention, or at the very least he is getting off on simply upsetting someone and the sense of power to it.

 

On the internet you can use self delusion, ie. make believe or "lying" as you put it, as a tool, where it may not apply except in the company of the particularly innocent/ignorant in RL. I've answered ridiculous arguments with a simple look before, and the establishment was obvious to all witnesses, but this can either be faked or fail to implicate on the 'net. Some things like conscience are easier to ignore in a virtual environment and often this is a very large part of feeling offended on the 'net.

 

So for this reason alone, though many others I'm sure, where you feel bothered by a forum, take a break for a bit. Simply put there's nothing you can do about it and there's no point shortening your life to the manipulations of the callous at heart. Or just as bad, by misreading or misinterpreting perfectly fine intentions.

[Blix]

I think it's difficult to discern when someone's lying or being truthful on a forum unless you know them somewhat well enough to know better or at least enough to be suspicious, since the internet allows one enough sources to be able to provide false information to others online to either troll or just to get attention. I know at least one forum that takes the cake for that, I won't say the name out of respect for Lucas Forums but it definitely exists it isn't a fantasy.

[Darth_Yuthura]

To me a twisted statement is a lie. And as for statistics, you can prove anything with them by just using the factors you want to use and ignoring everything else. If you are using it as a sounding board, that is good. But when you hold it up as proof, I prefer cold hard facts.

 

A similar issue I've encountered are two-on-one opposition debates. When one person presents a series of posts to make a point, then a counter argument can be made to the validity of the facts. When there are two or more people back a side, it has a snowballing effect where the opposition can't attack because someone else made the statement.

 

Example: If I presented statistics in a thread and someone else makes a point by twisting what I presented into something completely different, it can't be opposed because that person didn't make the original statement. If I made that same statement, then I would lose because I presented the original statistics in the first place.

 

Multiple people debating for the same side mutually compliment one another, but inevitably causes what is termed 'group think.'

[Totenkopf]

Example: If I presented statistics in a thread and someone else makes a point by twisting what I presented into something completely different, it can't be opposed because that person didn't make the original statement. If I made that same statement, then I would lose because I presented the original statistics in the first place.

 

Arguments can always be opposed if either A)you disagree with them on principle or B)you take issue with how something is being presented. I don't see how you cannot oppose someone's argument just b/c you think or feel they've twisted your statistics to make a counterargument or new argument altogether. That they didn't make the original argument/statement doesn't make their position unassailable. My guess is that it may become a bit disorienting combating multiple posters as you may might begin to conflate your opponent's arguments and mistake who made which specific claim. Shouldn't be a problem if you address each poster individually.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well I would have given some actual examples of what I've had to address, but I'm not at liberty to present them.

 

Whether or not an argument is won to me is irrelevant, but if I fail to make my point; that DOES NOT mean that the opposition must be so. What I loathe to an extreme level are people who don't actually present a convincing counter-argument and then assume that they've disproven a point, attack the opposite side by using that assumption, and at that point(true or not) it would blackball anyone who thinks differently.

 

At that point, no one would actually look at the evidence anymore. The term 'blackball' isn't used properly, just note that.

[Totenkopf]

Just b/c more than one person might disagree with you doesn't inherently marginalize your point. I've noticed that what gets people in trouble, though, is the heatedness with which they disagree. When arguments become personal, the debate has pretty much ended b/c neither side is really interested in hearing the other's positions. Sometimes you've just got to agree to disagree and disengage, especially in a forum like this, b/c it has no real impact on your personal life (save whatever you choose to give it).

 

But you're going to have to accept that this will happen anyway. It's a public forum and your opposition may see your arguments the same way and react similiarly. A bitter pill, perhaps, but one of the side effects of "free speech". Just present your arguments and understand that others are going to disagree with you. That and it's not the end of the world. Don't assume that b/c the other guy gets the last word (or that you do) that it is definitive. People will make up their own minds.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well I intensely dislike it not when the opposite side disagrees with me, but when they turn the debate from an intellectual process into a heated match where they hold to something and refuse to believe anything else. And from that to assume everything else is wrong and to fight it so people see things their way instead of letting them make their own judgments.

 

In one recent debate I've had, a person presented anecdotal evidence for actual proof and essentially put his one perspective above everything else. I have nothing against those who've served in the military; they show great courage when they step up to defend the state, but that does not mean their perspective automatically is worth more when they speak of issues that go beyond their experiences. If a soldier talks about a political issue of which he didn't participate in, he cannot say his word is worth more than another's because he wasn't there.

 

If the issue were about Dragon Skin armour and he had worn it, he can make a statement about his experience right there about its performance. The problem is that if he starts spouting off about the military's testing of DS, he would make claims and use himself as a first-hand reference for everything on that topic when he's not. He could talk about his experience for wearing DS once, but that is as far as it goes.

 

The problem I encounter most often in an argument is how people paint the opposite side badly and hold to a certain belief, but go so far as to proclaim that they know better than the opposite side. I would yield to the word of a US soldier who's actually been in war, but not when he would use that status as a shield by which to make any claims he wants. (This isn't about anyone on this site, just in case you're wondering)

 

When that happens to anyone happening to see the thread, I would expect any reasonable person to back him because he does know more about battle than I; but actually didn't know that much about the topic being argued.

[mimartin]

Disagreement with opinion does not equal lying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Disagreement with opinion does not equal lying. Everyone is entitled to their opinion be it right or wrong.

 

Not when a person uses their opinion as fact. Then it is worth nothing.

 

If a person comes to a different conclusion, I want to know WHY they did; not THAT they did. If they can't explain why, then their opinion has no teeth in an argument. If they still submit it as evidence, then they are lying.

[Jae Onasi]

Lying is a very specific verb. If you are intentionally misleading someone, then you are lying. If you are sticking to your opinion based on information you believe to be true, that's your opinion. It may or may not be an incorrect opinion, but being mistaken is very different from lying.

 

This is a discussion forum. If you want to know why someone has an opinion different from yours, then ask them politely why. You might learn some interesting things, even if you don't end up changing your opinion as a result.

[mimartin]

Sounds like you are saying that anyone that does not agree with you or your sources opinion is lying. With all due respect I disagree. Someone can disagree with me and my sources and that does not make them a lair. I don’t even see that as making them less intelligent. However, disagreeing with fact is a different matter, but most of what we discuss here are opinions, not facts. Where is the fun in debating facts?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Sounds like you are saying that anyone that does not agree with your or your sources opinion is lying. With all due respect I disagree. Someone can disagree with me and my sources and that does not make them a lair. I don’t even see that as making them less intelligent. However, disagreeing with fact is a different matter, but most of what we discuss here are opinions, not facts. Where is the fun in debating facts?

 

That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

 

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

[CommanderQ]

That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

 

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

 

I think perhaps we are delving too deep into the idea of lying. Now, if you had no value in an opinion you were stating, why are you stating it?

 

As Jae said, lying is a very specific verb. It's simply not truth. {That is the basic}

 

On the internet, as we've all found, it is extremely difficult to tell if someone is lying, especially if they are clever. But when it comes to a debate, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to me, that in itself is a point. Do they need some sort of link or video to prove that point? They could, but then again, they don't have to. The only person they really need to prove it to is themselves, and that's all they need.

 

Now, it is good to have a firm foundation, and to know what you believe in, a good debater would do well to have sources at hand. But we cannot implicate someone to be lying if they do not provide ample proof online of their point.

 

Because they cannot provide ample proof, we can't just assume that they have no value in their opinion, or rather that their opinion has no value.

[Astor]

That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

 

The problem here is that everyone is going to have a different idea of exactly what an 'effective counter argument' is. Is it right to say they're lying if you don't agree with their argument?

 

It's also the same with judging whether someone has added something to the debate - it's entirely opinion based.

 

It doesn't make them a liar.

 

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but isn't that basically saying 'i'm right, and if you disagree, you're wrong?'

[Darth_Yuthura]

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but isn't that basically saying 'i'm right, and if you disagree, you're wrong?'

 

I'm saying that I wouldn't submit an opinion if I didn't know the subject very well. If the issue were in regards to biology, (A subject I don't have any aptitude for) I wouldn't place much faith in what I know.

 

It's basically 'If you disagree, I'd like you to prove it before submitting it as proof.'

 

I assume everyone else would form their opinions based on their experiences, but if they submit something that I don't find convincing, I'm going to assume they're wrong. Likewise if I don't make a convincing argument, I assume they're going to believe I'm wrong.

 

What actually happens though is that one who can punch holes in an argument will say their own statement must therefore be right. I would respect another person submitting evidence, but not when they proclaim their evidence counters my statement without convincing me.

 

When I start a thread, I aim to present evidence and let readers decide for themselves. What usually happens is that the other side submits something and then says that my sources are incorrect. I don't want to say the opposite side of an argument is incorrect, but I feel I have to when they undermine my side.

 

I am guilty of doing this as well, so this is hypocritical of me to complain. I would like to get the opposite side's perspective on the matter, but when it seeks more to undermine my evidence... I won't respect an opinion more if it says 'Could it also be this?' rather than 'I'm right/You're wrong'

[igyman]

I have to agree with Jae - lying is a very specific verb. The example that you mentioned - a person who offers a counter-opinion without immediately explaining how they formed that opinion isn't lying. You can question the value of their argument, but you can't accuse them of lying. Also, sometimes the explanation a person offers for their opinion simply doesn't satisfy our own requirements, in which case you either ask that person to clarify the confusing part, or you simply agree to disagree.

 

Now, when it comes to the main question of this thread - sanctions for lying and to which extent should they go (if at all) - I think it depends on the nature of the lie.

 

For example, (this actually happened very recently on another forum) a member posts art in the art section of the forum, but he lies about him being the author of said art. Other members who have already seen said art somewhere on the net begin to suspect something, some outright accuse him, others ask in a more refined manner about some details, others find actual evidence that the art isn't his and provide links. In the end the thread is locked and deleted and the offending member was (as far as I know) punished (most likely banned, but I can't say for certain). Now, while this isn't the best way for members to behave (I personally think it would have been more civilized to report the thread to a mod and present evidence directly to them, instead posting them in said thread), the infraction was handled (and it definitely should have been handled) and the offending member got even more than he deserved - he was exposed in his own thread, which undoubtedly caused some humiliation and hopefully that person won't repeat the deed again.

 

In conclusion, yeah, some forms of lying should be sanctioned, but the trick is in recognizing them.

[EnderWiggin]

That is not what I am suggesting. Anyone who 'disproves' a source without offering an effective counter argument and proclaim that they are right is lying. Or at the very least, that person supplants the opposite side by pouring sand into their argument and offering nothing of value to the debate.

 

I'm not one to easily change my opinion, but only because I make one based on a solid foundation of proof. When I don't have that much proof to go on, my opinion is very flexible to change, and I don't put much value in that belief. If I did, I would be lying.

What are you hoping to accomplish with this thread, besides making a large scene?

 

If you could tell us, then perhaps we could work towards a resolution (or at least an end) and you could get off your high horse?

 

Seems like a soapbox instead of a discussion thread.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

Quote: Igyman: The example that you mentioned - a person who offers a counter-opinion without immediately explaining how they formed that opinion isn't lying. You can question the value of their argument, but you can't accuse them of lying.

 

 

If a person offers a counter opinion to mine, there is nothing wrong with that. If proof is requested and they don't present a compelling counter argument, then it just goes to the credibility of their case. If I'm the only one who doesn't agree with that, then the way I respond goes to my credibility.

 

If people are convinced that the opposite side is right, then they clearly made a better case than I did. If the opposite side did nothing more than attack my credibility by creating a circular argument, I would consider that a personal offense because it was not backed by anything of intellectual value.

 

Example: It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about

Example: If you actually were there, you would see it's different from what you get in a book. It's obvious that you've never been to ******, so there's no point in you trying to argue.

Example: Given as you are wrong here, then you could be wrong about ****.

 

Both of these have actually been thrown at me before and they were insulting because they weren't true.

[igyman]

I think that a person is lying if they create a circular argument, or one meant to discredit the person on the opposite side.

 

A circular argument is a logical fallacy and you can definitely argue its validity, but I still don't think you can consider it lying.

 

Example: It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about

 

An argument of this type, without any further elaboration as to why someone has no idea what they're talking about is obviously an argument of practically no value and as such shouldn't even be commented on, IMO.

 

Example: If you actually were there, you would see it's different from what you get in a book. It's obvious that you've never been to ******, so there's no point in you trying to argue.

 

When someone offers this kind of argument, it's pretty obvious that they are taking the topic at hand very personally and because they've been in that type of situation, or live/have lived in a particular place, or whatever, they are convinced to know more on the subject than someone else (and are right in a lot of cases). I know because I've used this kind of argument at least once in a very emotional topic for me. I'm still convinced I was right, but I realize that it wasn't the best way to present my case. First hand experience should count a lot IMO, but it doesn't seem to for some reason.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Maybe. I know a certain professor who lives in Milwaukee (an urban geography professor) who I would trust to know his field. The problem is that I can't exactly call on him as a source and expect people on a forum to take my word for it, as I could very well have even gotten his logic wrong. Not to mention that no one else on this forum knows this guy, but I could point to something he's published.

 

And being first person to something holds a higher level of value than second-hand evidence, but the conflict I often encounter is really how much of the debate that person really participated in. Someone could have been in the military for 10 years, but that doesn't mean that they fully understand what escalated the conflict they were in. If they were a witness to an event, they can talk about their experiences and what they've done, but if they debate on a subject that they didn't participate in directly, they can't use themselves as a first-person source in that regard.

 

That's where first-person sources get difficult to debate.

[CommanderQ]

Maybe. I know a certain professor who lives in Milwaukee (an urban geography professor) who I would trust to know his field. The problem is that I can't exactly call on him as a source and expect people on a forum to take my word for it, as I could very well have even gotten his logic wrong. Not to mention that no one else on this forum knows this guy, but I could point to something he's published.

 

And being first person to something holds a higher level of value than second-hand evidence, but the conflict I often encounter is really how much of the debate that person really participated in. Someone could have been in the military for 10 years, but that doesn't mean that they fully understand what escalated the conflict they were in. If they were a witness to an event, they can talk about their experiences and what they've done, but if they debate on a subject that they didn't participate in directly, they can't use themselves as a first-person source in that regard.

 

That's where first-person sources get difficult to debate.

 

Well, first person accounts can be accurate, but on the internet, it would be difficult to prove. Unless the person giving the account is extremely trusted {which is slightly hard to find online}.

 

But also, first person accounts are influenced by that person's point-of-view and opinion, and that in itself can deteriorate the validity of their statement.

[EnderWiggin]

Why did you quote my post and then choose to ignore it?

 

Either quote it and reply, or just ignore me altogether. The half-and-half thing you're doing is odd.

 

_EW_