TruthSeeker <
nos...@nofnspam.com> wrote:
> ...
>Now there is an interesting point. His intent was clearly to lie but by
>the time he told it, it was true. That accident does not make him any
>less dishonest, though. Intent matters.
> ...
Of course intent matters, but discerning intent, is, in reality,
often impossible. Let's take as an example the episode in which
V.P. Dick Cheney shot hunting companion Harry Whittington in the
face. Now, we're talking about two very powerful men, in the
company of two very powerful woman (not their wives).
Whittington had just scored a "double" showing up the egocentric
Cheney. Cheney had been drinking and was on prescription drugs.
Was there intent? I think there was, but I fully admit that it
is impossible to prove. Further, it may have been subconscious
and even *Cheney* might not realize that he intended to shoot
Whittington.
That's an example of why relying on "intent" to discriminate
between "lie" and "falsehood" is totally artificial. You can,
if you like, *posit* such a discriminiant, but there is not
objective basis for it. You're just being arbitrary.
--bks