If they don’t specify how they’re special then they need to be special in any way for what they say to be true though. If they say they’re special in a certain way and they aren’t, then that’d be a lie.
By the way, how many children do you have?
Remember, if it’s zero, you wouldn’t want to lie like you did earlier when I asked you what you told them and you responded.
Not sure why you think I wouldn’t want to lie or why you think I lied earlier.
Got it. Lying by omission is not lying. You need to contact the world’s justice systems and let them know.
I’m not sure what omission you are talking about.
Okay, then what is even the point of this conversation? Are you just bored and looking for someone to be contentious with?
I just wanted to make the original point. And now I’m just replying to your messages (even though the original discussion seem to be over) because I feel like it’d be rude not to.
Your “original point” was that I was lying to my daughter by not coming up with unreasonable alternatives even though she clearly knew what I meant and understood what I was saying. It was a ridiculous point and it is no more a lie than the specials example because, as you made clear, she understood the context.
Your “original point” was that I was lying to my daughter by not coming up with unreasonable alternatives even though she clearly knew what I meant and understood what I was saying.
Sorta, I just meant that yeah you were lying because the actual reason was convenience. As for the specials example, I’m not sure it really worked (or you didn’t properly work it out), since in that case the special was actually special in some form. If you meant that it wasn’t actually special in any way but I was expected to know it wasn’t supposed to be, it would be closer, in that it would also be lying.’
What was the omission you talked about earlier btw?
Yes, and the reason to not beat clothes with a rock by the stream and put them in the washer instead is convenience, but my daughter knows that when I tell her, “if you don’t put clothes in the wash, you’ll have to wear stinky clothes,” it isn’t a lie, even though she understands that, if she wanted to, she could go out to the stream in the middle of February, break through the ice for the water, get a rock and start beating on the clothes.
I mean the explanation is not 100% true in the sense that it’s not the actual reason, but if she isn’t supposed to believe it then it’s not a lie in that sense, if you require intent. Not all definitions do, so it still could be a lie.
If they don’t specify how they’re special then they need to be special in any way for what they say to be true though. If they say they’re special in a certain way and they aren’t, then that’d be a lie.
Not sure why you think I wouldn’t want to lie or why you think I lied earlier.
Got it. Lying by omission is not lying. You need to contact the world’s justice systems and let them know.
Okay, then what is even the point of this conversation? Are you just bored and looking for someone to be contentious with?
I’m not sure what omission you are talking about.
I just wanted to make the original point. And now I’m just replying to your messages (even though the original discussion seem to be over) because I feel like it’d be rude not to.
Your “original point” was that I was lying to my daughter by not coming up with unreasonable alternatives even though she clearly knew what I meant and understood what I was saying. It was a ridiculous point and it is no more a lie than the specials example because, as you made clear, she understood the context.
Sorta, I just meant that yeah you were lying because the actual reason was convenience. As for the specials example, I’m not sure it really worked (or you didn’t properly work it out), since in that case the special was actually special in some form. If you meant that it wasn’t actually special in any way but I was expected to know it wasn’t supposed to be, it would be closer, in that it would also be lying.’
What was the omission you talked about earlier btw?
Again, it wasn’t convenience if she understood the context.
Why are you not getting that?
I was saying the reason to put the dishes away is convenience, not that dishes literally couldn’t be washed otherwise.
Yes, and the reason to not beat clothes with a rock by the stream and put them in the washer instead is convenience, but my daughter knows that when I tell her, “if you don’t put clothes in the wash, you’ll have to wear stinky clothes,” it isn’t a lie, even though she understands that, if she wanted to, she could go out to the stream in the middle of February, break through the ice for the water, get a rock and start beating on the clothes.
Because she’s not a fucking idiot.
I mean the explanation is not 100% true in the sense that it’s not the actual reason, but if she isn’t supposed to believe it then it’s not a lie in that sense, if you require intent. Not all definitions do, so it still could be a lie.
I don’t know enough to comment on that