Re: When Richard calls people liars he lies

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: When Richard calls people liars he lies
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 07. Jun 2024, 17:14:00
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3v83o$39ri5$1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/7/24 9:23 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 12:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 14:56:28 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/6/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 14:27:41 +0000, olcott said:
>
The common meaning of the term [lie] is
>
noun
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
an intentional untruth.
>
verb (used without object)
(1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive. Synonyms: fib, prevaricate
>
When Richard calls people liars and does not mean they have any
intent to deceive this makes Richard a liar because Richard knows
that people will be lead to believe that he is using the common
definition that requires an intent to deceive.
>
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>
In some places the subject line may be regareded aa a crime unless
its author can present an acceptable proof of it.
>
It is often regarded as a bad manner to put names of people
to the subject line.
>
According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lie#Etymology_2
a possible meaning is 'To be mistaken or unintentionally spread false
information'.
>
>
Richard intends for people to get the false impression thus Richard
lies with intent to deceive.
>
In some (but not all) paĺacess saying that is a crime unless you can
prove your words in a way that is accepted by a judge (or whatever
the local laws happen to require).
>
Anyway, moral and legal issues are of topic in comp.theory.
>
 When anyone defames me or my work I must counter
this defamation in the place where it occurred.
 
But I do not falsely defame you. Your own words prove that may description of you is correct.
You claim things that are just false, and other things that you just can not prove.
To claim defamation, you would need to show that your suffered damages, that I hurt your reputation. Since you don't have one, except perhaps as a accused pedophile, I can't have hurt it. Your own words defamed you enough.
This is why the election deniers can't try to claim defamation, they have no reputation to lose.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Nov 24 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal