For Aqualung...
Helmut Mayer
If you've already read it, there are still some questions at the end.)
>From vn Fri Apr 1 19:43:51 1994
Subject: RE: Helmut tells no lies...
Newsgroups: alt.romance
References: <1994Apr1.0...@smos.com>
da...@smos.com (David Tornheim) writes:
>
> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) responds:
>>If people tell me in the face that they're always honest and have
>>problems with lying people and the only thing they do
>>after they used me is lying, then I'm a little bit angry.
>
> Ahhh. But, they were lying all along, weren't they! You made the mistake
> of believing them!
>
> Come on, Helmut. Everyone lies sometimes, even you!
I think that everyone can agree that everyone lies sometimes. I'm
suspect of anyone who says that they 'never lie'. I say, quite
honestly, that "I never deliberately lie and mislead people". If I
don't know something to be true, I say that I don't know. If I say
something second-hand, I always try to reinforce that the knowledge
is second-hand, and based upon what I was told. I'd say that's as
honest as anyone can expect of anyone else.
>>I respect people. If I always doubt, if they're telling the truth, I don't
>>respect them.
>
> So you think that respecting someone means believing everything they say?
I could never respect someone who I know lies to me, because anything
they would tell me would always thereafter be suspect. I could never
trust them, and without trust, how can I honestly "respect" someone?
> Example: They say: "I can't spend time with you, I'm busy today."
> Reality:
> "I do have time to spend with you, but I'd rather spend it with
> other people who I like better instead."
> Both messages say the same thing: "find something to do without me"
> The first spares my feelings, while the second is needlessly mean.
> I would have _less_ trust for a person who would use the second statement.
Bzzt, wrong. The first message says "can't" and the second message
says "won't". There is a grammatical difference, or there wouldn't
be two different words in the language.
>>if they are lying and I believe them, it's their fault not mine.
>
> Does it matter? Are you going to take them to court and press for damages?
> Do you have that much time? Wouldn't it save you time and perhaps terrible
> consequences to recognize the lie and act upon that?
Sure. So in a world full of liars, how is one supposed to
differentiate between the two, until after the fact and the
damage has been done? I've been trying to be able to determine
when people are lying and when they're telling the truth for some
time, quite unsuccessfully. Putting it into the boolean chart
that Pascal used to justify religion, the only way to do that is
to never trust anyone, ever. If that's the case, we're all
best served to serve no one except ourselves, and society isn't
worth shit. Hey, society ISN'T worth shit! Is it any wonder?
>> They lie, because they have no spine, no attitude, no respect.
>
> My friends lie to me, because they have a spine, have a good attitude that
> allows them to respect my feelings. I respect them for it.
Based upon your example above, if they're REALLY your friends, they
WOULD have desired to spend time with you and wouldn't have needed
to lie to you...
>> Their main purpose of life is to be in a power position, no matter how they
>> get there, no matter how they get there, so they manipulate people = lying.
>
> Not true. They were doing it to protect my feelings, not control me.
Wrong again. They were controlling you. They aren't your "friends".
(That is, of course, based on my previously stated logic that they
_would_ desire to be spending time with you rather than others.)
You have something that at some future time they may want from you.
But for today, they don't want it or can't get it from you, so they're
off to spend time with those who DO have what they want, and that
they're more likely to get. In the mean time, they're manipulating
YOU, and putting YOU on hold. Otherwise, whether they're lying or
not, they wouldn't have had any REASON to lie to you, and even liars
wouldn't lie in such an instance.
> Besides, people like yourself allow them to control you, by believing them.
But you're the first guilty party here. You know that they lie, yet
insist on believing that they're your friends. If you know that they
lie, how can you blindly accept and believe them that they're your
friends anyway?
>> There are lots of people who would agree with me right now.
>
> I hope not. Just for curiosity, could you come up with some of those?
> Is there anyone in this newsgroup who agrees with Helmut's philosophy?
I obviously do, to some greater or lesser degree.
>>But it's meaningless to communicate with people who are lying.
>
> Not true. If you are content that the person is lying, then they've just
> communicated something to you, whatever it is that they just said is not
> true.
The only reason one may have for communicating with liars is if one
is a liar him/herself and has something to gain as well...
Being a scientist and philosopher, it IS meaningless to communicate
with liars. It is LYING that leads people astray, causing their minds
to blindly grope their ways down dark, dead-end alleys. It is lying
that creates such a rainbow spectrum of grey-scale in life. If we
search deep enough, there is always a "truth". (And that truth may
well be '42', for all I know, having been lead down so many blind
alleyways in MY life.)
Here is a relatively boolean breakdown of what happens, since this
all started witht he LJBF stuff. The LJBFer is or isn't lying.
If he/she MEANS LJBF, then everything is fine, and there is no
lie, and he/she WILL desire to spend time with you, albeit in a
strictly platonic fashion. The LJBFee has two choices, believe
him/her or not. If the LJBFee chooses to believe the LJBFer, and
the LJBFer told the truth, everything's fine. If the LJBFee
chooses NOT to believe the LJBFer, the LJBFer gets hurt. In that
the LJBFee has already determined and announced a liking for the
LJBFer, then the LJBFee _doesn't_ want to hurt the LJBFer (most
likely), and is put into the position of being FORCED to accept
and believe the LJBFer.
However, what if the LJBFer is lying? The LJBFee is really stuck
for it! It's already probable that the LJBFee likes the LJBFer,
and in the least has no desire to hurt the LJBFer, and is destined
to accepting the LJBF line as true. But the LJBFee is being blindly
led down a path of _further_ destruction and pain and rejection, and
in the mean time, the LJBFer thinks (and is telling others, most
probably) what an asshole this LJBFee person is for still trying to
hang out at all (not only hurting the LJBFee directly, but hurting
that person's reputation terribly as well). The LJBFer is the LIEer
and the HURTer. The LJBFee is the LIEee and the HURTee.
There are only two scenerios where everything works out. Either the
LJBF line is true, and everyone's [relatively] happy (or at least
not hurt still further) or the LJBF line is a lie, and always a lie,
and must always be expected to mean "get lost you disgusting piece
of shit". And since there are times when EVERYONE seriously means
the LJBF line when they say it and desires friendship, the line can
NEVER be expected to mean "get lost" to ANYONE, whether they are
the one saying it or receiving it (or at least they can never expect
anyone to believe it or them when they do mean it).
So, take a vote. Which is it going to be? Always be telling someone
"get lost" by using LJBF, or only say it when you really MEAN it?
That is, after all, what it really boils down to, if we're REALLY
trying to spare the feelings of others...
jim
(The logical part is excellent and I really would like to hear some comments. I
fear there won't be any. Why? Because we got plenty of very intelligent people
here and they (even our AI-program) know that Jim is right. If they admit it,
they can no longer use these all-purpose excuses like "sparing the feelings".
What should they do with the next LJBFee, then? PEACE.OUT.Helmut)