|
Post by tanmanpursley73 on Aug 22, 2004 1:20:51 GMT -5
umm kayla where is this that u got ur information?
cuz that doesnt sound right at all becawse u r not verbaly telling an untruth its just ur not talking
|
|
|
Post by Football54 on Aug 22, 2004 17:00:27 GMT -5
ok, this is no longer a debate, it is merely an argument between people who would do it and people who wouldn't pretty much. We don't have enough information on the subject story anyways to truly debate it, sorry tanman, but we just can't tell without more info on the situation
|
|
|
Post by Smart1 on Aug 22, 2004 22:05:11 GMT -5
umm kayla where is this that u got ur information? cuz that doesnt sound right at all becawse u r not verbaly telling an untruth its just ur not talking Lying by omission... Omission--n -s Something neglected or left undone 2. the act of omitting whether by leaving out or by abstention from inserting or failure to include (or perform)
|
|
|
Post by Football54 on Aug 22, 2004 22:37:37 GMT -5
bravo sryan
|
|
|
Post by Empress Kitty on Aug 22, 2004 22:50:08 GMT -5
There was an article on lying by omission in the August 2004 edition of the Ensign. Did you read it? Obviously not. That's not where I got it from, though. I think I might've come across it first in a book where the girl finds out she's adopted and that her parents lied to her about her being their child. The mother says they have never lied to her, and the girl replies with "Omission. That's the word, isn't it? Lying by omission. Not saying something--not telling what you know--just because no one ever asked you. It's still a lie."
|
|
|
Post by Jenni on Aug 22, 2004 22:52:20 GMT -5
i looked up wut it means
lie n. 1.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies v. intr. 1.To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2.To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
|
|
|
Post by Empress Kitty on Aug 22, 2004 23:08:51 GMT -5
Put the two definitions together and you've got the problem that De Rigueur brought up. "if you were at, let's just say you were somewhere where you weren't supposed to be, when you came home if your parents don't ask where you were, and you don't tell them, is that really considered lying?" It's lying because the parents are assuming that you didn't go where you weren't supposed to go. That's the lie. You would be lying to your parents by not telling them that you were somewhere where you weren't supposed to be even if they don't ask. By being silent, you're giving them the answer that everything was alright. Do you all understand now?
|
|
|
Post by Football54 on Aug 24, 2004 22:59:57 GMT -5
hmmm, i would have to say the argument came back to bite you tanman
|
|
|
Post by tanmanpursley73 on Aug 29, 2004 20:20:45 GMT -5
ya lare i guess it did but o well
i guess i would be a liar then o well
|
|
|
Post by Football54 on Aug 29, 2004 21:24:18 GMT -5
join the club
|
|
|
Post by Dzicc12 on Aug 30, 2004 23:33:49 GMT -5
umm i really dont know thats a tuff question but if they dont ask and you dont say anything i dont think its lying
|
|
|
Post by Dzicc12 on Aug 30, 2004 23:34:04 GMT -5
umm i really dont know thats a tuff question but if they dont ask and you dont say anything i dont think its lying but im not really sure
|
|