It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Myth of The Lying President

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Eshel



noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.


Hate to break it to ya bub, but your definition requiring "deliberate intent" is not the whole story. I guess if you cherry pick your definitions, it's easier to defend your position. But if you look at definition 2 & 3, I'm pretty sure that he "lies" very often.

On a technicality, I suppose you told a "lie of omission".




Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.


Hate to break it to you bub, but dictionaries define according to usage. They even record usage that is blatantly false.


So now even dictionaries are fake news...





Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


Appeal to definition




posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: babybunnies
This is a ridiculous post. It's par for the course for Donald Trump supporters to say "there's no evidence for this" when in fact, evidence is widespread.

OP claims "no evidence that donald trump actually lied" when in fact, evidence shows that he lies about 80% of the time.

Hell, he has such little credibility left with Americans that about 70% of Americans don't believe they're getting a tax cut.


Show me one piece of evidence.


Donald Trump said that he doesn't know any of the women who accused him of sexual assault. He was BUSINESS PARTNERS with one of them. And that's just ONE.


How do you know he’s lying?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

Given the criteria set by Les, I’m not sure there has ever been what we humans would all a “liar” in the history of the Universe...

The criteria insisted upon is no different than that insisted upon by the flat-earthers, that they themselves premise, thereby making a circular argument....Ask Kelly-Anne about that and her Alternative 'facts'
When people need to write a dissertation on what is or what isn't a lie, then the whole caboodle is a lie per se.
Hmmm...people get paid for stuff like that!



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Eshel



noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.


Hate to break it to ya bub, but your definition requiring "deliberate intent" is not the whole story. I guess if you cherry pick your definitions, it's easier to defend your position. But if you look at definition 2 & 3, I'm pretty sure that he "lies" very often.

On a technicality, I suppose you told a "lie of omission".




Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.


Hate to break it to you bub, but dictionaries define according to usage. They even record usage that is blatantly false.


So now even dictionaries are fake news...





Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


Appeal to definition



So by a current dictionary definition the current president is a liar.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Eshel



noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.


Hate to break it to ya bub, but your definition requiring "deliberate intent" is not the whole story. I guess if you cherry pick your definitions, it's easier to defend your position. But if you look at definition 2 & 3, I'm pretty sure that he "lies" very often.

On a technicality, I suppose you told a "lie of omission".




Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.


Hate to break it to you bub, but dictionaries define according to usage. They even record usage that is blatantly false.


So now even dictionaries are fake news...





Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


Appeal to definition



So by a current dictionary definition the current president is a liar.


No.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Eshel



noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.


Hate to break it to ya bub, but your definition requiring "deliberate intent" is not the whole story. I guess if you cherry pick your definitions, it's easier to defend your position. But if you look at definition 2 & 3, I'm pretty sure that he "lies" very often.

On a technicality, I suppose you told a "lie of omission".




Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.


Hate to break it to you bub, but dictionaries define according to usage. They even record usage that is blatantly false.


So now even dictionaries are fake news...





Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


Appeal to definition



So by a current dictionary definition the current president is a liar.


No.


Convincing rebuttal.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

Given the criteria set by Les, I’m not sure there has ever been what we humans would all a “liar” in the history of the Universe...

The criteria insisted upon is no different than that insisted upon by the flat-earthers, that they themselves premise, thereby making a circular argument....Ask Kelly-Anne about that and her Alternative 'facts'
When people need to write a dissertation on what is or what isn't a lie, then the whole caboodle is a lie per se.
Hmmm...people get paid for stuff like that!


There are plenty of philosophical and scientific dissertations on what is or isn’t a lie. All you have to do is take a look, but that would involve thinking for yourself.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

No.


Don't tell lies!
edit on 26-12-2017 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Eshel



noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.


Hate to break it to ya bub, but your definition requiring "deliberate intent" is not the whole story. I guess if you cherry pick your definitions, it's easier to defend your position. But if you look at definition 2 & 3, I'm pretty sure that he "lies" very often.

On a technicality, I suppose you told a "lie of omission".




Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.


Hate to break it to you bub, but dictionaries define according to usage. They even record usage that is blatantly false.


So now even dictionaries are fake news...





Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


Appeal to definition



So by a current dictionary definition the current president is a liar.


No.


Convincing rebuttal.


The other dictionary definitions, and the definitions of scientific research and law, contradict the definition you’re using to formulate your nonsensical statement. A little better?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Man, I love you ... Merry Christmas ... it's rarely that you meet such intelligent speech.

Agree with you, 100%


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


I know you live on that website. But I gotta tell you, it's just bulls**t. Every discussion we've had you claim "logical fallacy". It's trite and cliche.

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell us that dictionaries have changed the definition of the word "lie" ? Do you think all sources of the definition are incorrect?

Stanford
Cambridge
Merriam-Webster
Legal Dictionary

How about this one? Surely you can relate to it...


delusional
[dih-loo-zhuh-nl]
adjective
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Eshel



noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.


Hate to break it to ya bub, but your definition requiring "deliberate intent" is not the whole story. I guess if you cherry pick your definitions, it's easier to defend your position. But if you look at definition 2 & 3, I'm pretty sure that he "lies" very often.

On a technicality, I suppose you told a "lie of omission".




Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.


Hate to break it to you bub, but dictionaries define according to usage. They even record usage that is blatantly false.


So now even dictionaries are fake news...





Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


Appeal to definition



So by a current dictionary definition the current president is a liar.


No.


Convincing rebuttal.


The other dictionary definitions, and the definitions of scientific research and law, contradict the definition you’re using to formulate your nonsensical statement. A little better?


He is the President of the United States of America.

He had access to more up to date fact checking than anyone else on the planet.

If he says something blatantly untrue he is lying or too lazy/stupid to check.

Which is it?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



A child is not lying when he states the falsity that Santa delivers gifts at Christmas. He is not intending to deceive anyone. His claim, even though it is false, is made in good faith and innocently


I think that may be the best comparison we have seen to date and you are absolutely correct.

Trump is not a liar. He is like an innocent, ignorant child that doesn't know any better.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: muzzleflash

I was just picking them at random from the NYT piece that the OP linked. Each of the items has a link to fact checking. In this case:

Fact-Check: Trump Is Wrong About Guantánamo Detainees


According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, of the 714 former Guantánamo Bay detainees who were transferred to other countries by Jan. 15, 2017 — dating back to when the Bush administration opened the prison in Cuba in January 2002 — 121 are “confirmed” to have engaged in militant activity after their release.

However, the overwhelming majority of those 121 men, 113 of them, were transferred under President George W. Bush, not President Barack Obama.

Notably, about half of the men deemed recidivists are dead or in custody.


Is the child who declares Santa comes down the chimney lying?


Sounds like it’s time to take a closer look at the 25th amendment!
edit on 26-12-2017 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Eshel

Just proves Trumpa Lumpas don't care If Trump lies or not and they will give him a free pass even when he does.
It amazes me the lengths some will go to defend Trump it is getting creepy messiah like.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



A child is not lying when he states the falsity that Santa delivers gifts at Christmas. He is not intending to deceive anyone. His claim, even though it is false, is made in good faith and innocently


I think that may be the best comparison we have seen to date and you are absolutely correct.

Trump is not a liar. He is like an innocent, ignorant child that doesn't know any better.


He’s a 70 year old man, not a child. And I’m sure if you didn’t cherry pick his untruths while not touching his truths, you might find the frequency of untruths is pretty common, and you wouldn’t have to lie to yourself to support your falsities.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: muzzleflash

I was just picking them at random from the NYT piece that the OP linked. Each of the items has a link to fact checking. In this case:

Fact-Check: Trump Is Wrong About Guantánamo Detainees


According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, of the 714 former Guantánamo Bay detainees who were transferred to other countries by Jan. 15, 2017 — dating back to when the Bush administration opened the prison in Cuba in January 2002 — 121 are “confirmed” to have engaged in militant activity after their release.

However, the overwhelming majority of those 121 men, 113 of them, were transferred under President George W. Bush, not President Barack Obama.

Notably, about half of the men deemed recidivists are dead or in custody.


You and they are not seeming to explain this in a simple format though.

Is the "supposed fact" that 113 of 121 were by Bush rather than Obama?

If there are 714 total released under those two administrations, how many were released by each respectively?

Also, how do we know how many of them went back to war against the US? Do we have them all chipped or were only certain ones actually released into the open and then later were found out?

It seems that there'd be almost no way to know how many of them went back to war unless we kept constant tabs on them, because with the weapons we use against militants I'd expect a fair amount of them would get blown to bits beyond recognition and they wouldn't be able to ID them.

Also does this count going to war against Syria or in other conflicts that ISIL or ISIS might be involved in? That isn't directly against the US but it is involved in the "Overall War" technically.

It just sounds to me like yall are pulling numbers out of no where and not really asking any good questions about where the hell those numbers came from and how we can know for sure those numbers are accurate at all.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So then you agree that Hillary being let off for the emails was the right move? I mean that also comes down intent.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.


I know you live on that website. But I gotta tell you, it's just bulls**t. Every discussion we've had you claim "logical fallacy". It's trite and cliche.

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell us that dictionaries have changed the definition of the word "lie" ? Do you think all sources of the definition are incorrect?

Stanford
Cambridge
Merriam-Webster
Legal Dictionary

How about this one? Surely you can relate to it...


delusional
[dih-loo-zhuh-nl]
adjective
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:


No, I’m saying they record usage, which is a demonstrable fact.

No I do not think those sources are incorrect. Why don’t you paste in their definitions instead of omitting them?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Eshel

Just proves Trumpa Lumpas don't care If Trump lies or not and they will give him a free pass even when he does.
It amazes me the lengths some will go to defend Trump it is getting creepy messiah like.



Actually I think I proved that you don’t care if trump lies or not, so long as some journalist makes the claim is all you guys need.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join