The Ethics of Telling the Truth

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,806
13,296
2,415
Pittsburgh
As someone with formal legal education, I have spent a lot of time pondering the line between not lying, and actual lying.

To illustrate, former President Clinton famously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," [Miss Lewinsky]. This specific statement was discussed in advance with Clinton's inner circle, and WJC insisted that being the recipient of a BJ was NOT having sexual relations, which expression is/was limited to the old in & out. His advisors expressed extreme skepticism about whether this non-denial denial would be accepted by the American public*. But at least arguably his statement was not a lie. During other times when he was accused of various nefarious acts or schemes, he would respond, "There is no evidence of that." Again, he was not denying the conduct, just pointing out that there was no publicly-available evidence that he did whatever it was. As with the BJ comment, he was not lying, which I would suggest is, if not ethical, at least ethically defensible.

The country now breathlessly watches the trial of one J. Smollett in Chicago, who, time after time denies that his transaction with the two Africans was not what everybody knows it was. Is it too much to expect the American public will reject and ostracize this lying bastard, or have "we" become so desensitized to prevarication that this will be treated as just someone accused doing what accused people do?

It is clear that few politicians are punished for their public lies, even when they are obviously lying at the moment when they speak. J. Biden (46th President of the United States) claimed on more than one occasion that he had never discussed his son's foreign business activities with that son. Literally Un-Believable. And yet....he gets a pass.

Everyone expects lawyers when acting in their capacity as advocates to lie all the time. We expect sales people to lie.

But shouldn't we demand that Journalists tell the truth? That they not present information in a way that is intended to deceive.? That they not word their stories in such a way that slants reality? And what about "normal people"? Actors, business people, and anyone speaking publicly for any reason.

Lying is evil. People who lie publicly should be shunned.
_________________________________
* Ironically, Clinton's definition of "having sex" was generally accepted at the time when this whole episode was in the news. Having sex is fucking, and other forms of sexual adventurism were sexual, perhaps, but having sex only referred to having sex. It was only later, when the Gay Mafia insisted that oral and anal sex were indeed, "having sex" that Clinton had to decline to defend himself on this basis.
 
As someone with formal legal education, I have spent a lot of time pondering the line between not lying, and actual lying.

To illustrate, former President Clinton famously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," [Miss Lewinsky]. This specific statement was discussed in advance with Clinton's inner circle, and WJC insisted that being the recipient of a BJ was NOT having sexual relations, which expression is/was limited to the old in & out. His advisors expressed extreme skepticism about whether this non-denial denial would be accepted by the American public*. But at least arguably his statement was not a lie. During other times when he was accused of various nefarious acts or schemes, he would respond, "There is no evidence of that." Again, he was not denying the conduct, just pointing out that there was no publicly-available evidence that he did whatever it was. As with the BJ comment, he was not lying, which I would suggest is, if not ethical, at least ethically defensible.

The country now breathlessly watches the trial of one J. Smollett in Chicago, who, time after time denies that his transaction with the two Africans was not what everybody knows it was. Is it too much to expect the American public will reject and ostracize this lying bastard, or have "we" become so desensitized to prevarication that this will be treated as just someone accused doing what accused people do?

It is clear that few politicians are punished for their public lies, even when they are obviously lying at the moment when they speak. J. Biden (46th President of the United States) claimed on more than one occasion that he had never discussed his son's foreign business activities with that son. Literally Un-Believable. And yet....he gets a pass.

Everyone expects lawyers when acting in their capacity as advocates to lie all the time. We expect sales people to lie.

But shouldn't we demand that Journalists tell the truth? That they not present information in a way that is intended to deceive.? That they not word their stories in such a way that slants reality? And what about "normal people"? Actors, business people, and anyone speaking publicly for any reason.

Lying is evil. People who lie publicly should be shunned.
_________________________________
* Ironically, Clinton's definition of "having sex" was generally accepted at the time when this whole episode was in the news. Having sex is fucking, and other forms of sexual adventurism were sexual, perhaps, but having sex only referred to having sex. It was only later, when the Gay Mafia insisted that oral and anal sex were indeed, "having sex" that Clinton had to decline to defend himself on this basis.
Has Mexico paid for the wall yet?
 
The predictable surprises of moral relativity. The gift that keeps on giving.
 
Biden Gave Ethics Lecture to Stephen Breyer at 1994 Confirmation Hearing


"Who better to give an ethics lecture to an aspiring Supreme Court justice than "10 for the Big Guy" Joe Biden? As you can see, Biden as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was concerned about ethical breaches during his ethics lecture to Stephen Breyer at his 1994 confirmation hearing. For more about Biden and the subject of ethics check out the many ethical breaches contained in Hunter Biden's laptop. Whole countries such as China, Russia, and Ukraine are very familiar with Joe Biden and ethical breaches".

Comment:
Biden was a pompous hypocrite then and hasn't change one iota. His competency is questionable.
Joey Xi's Ethical breaches are far and wide. They span the globe. with Ukraine, Russia and Chinas.
 
Last edited:
When did this walking dementia ridden bag of bones ever consider ethics unless it was unethical, racist and ideological contrary to the U.S. Constitution and it's Bill of Rights?
 
As someone with formal legal education, I have spent a lot of time pondering the line between not lying, and actual lying.

To illustrate, former President Clinton famously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," [Miss Lewinsky]. This specific statement was discussed in advance with Clinton's inner circle, and WJC insisted that being the recipient of a BJ was NOT having sexual relations, which expression is/was limited to the old in & out. His advisors expressed extreme skepticism about whether this non-denial denial would be accepted by the American public*. But at least arguably his statement was not a lie. During other times when he was accused of various nefarious acts or schemes, he would respond, "There is no evidence of that." Again, he was not denying the conduct, just pointing out that there was no publicly-available evidence that he did whatever it was. As with the BJ comment, he was not lying, which I would suggest is, if not ethical, at least ethically defensible.

The country now breathlessly watches the trial of one J. Smollett in Chicago, who, time after time denies that his transaction with the two Africans was not what everybody knows it was. Is it too much to expect the American public will reject and ostracize this lying bastard, or have "we" become so desensitized to prevarication that this will be treated as just someone accused doing what accused people do?

It is clear that few politicians are punished for their public lies, even when they are obviously lying at the moment when they speak. J. Biden (46th President of the United States) claimed on more than one occasion that he had never discussed his son's foreign business activities with that son. Literally Un-Believable. And yet....he gets a pass.

Everyone expects lawyers when acting in their capacity as advocates to lie all the time. We expect sales people to lie.

But shouldn't we demand that Journalists tell the truth? That they not present information in a way that is intended to deceive.? That they not word their stories in such a way that slants reality? And what about "normal people"? Actors, business people, and anyone speaking publicly for any reason.

Lying is evil. People who lie publicly should be shunned.
_________________________________
* Ironically, Clinton's definition of "having sex" was generally accepted at the time when this whole episode was in the news. Having sex is fucking, and other forms of sexual adventurism were sexual, perhaps, but having sex only referred to having sex. It was only later, when the Gay Mafia insisted that oral and anal sex were indeed, "having sex" that Clinton had to decline to defend himself on this basis.
Do you comprehend the result of presenting a "half truth"? A half truth always ends the equation being a "whole lie". There are sins of "omission" as well as "commission". You begin your premise by suggesting that a SEXUAL ACT is "not really" Sexual in nature by definition. Question? Can you Point to any place in the known world where Oral Sex is not considered a sexual relation? By your definition.........Homosexuals (with sex being the very nomenclature thereof) never engage in sexual relationship because their actions deviate from the accepted missionary act of sex. Another question, how would anyone other than the 2 engaged in this non sexual act of sex..........know if Slick Willy thrusted in and out? Would that make it a sexual act? :abgg2q.jpg: Personally, there is no doubt that Slick engaged in sex............just ask the dry cleaner. Telling a "LIE" is never "ethically defensible", even a half lie.

Of all the devises used by the god of this world (Satan -- 2 Cor. 4:4) all have a common theme.........their foundation is based upon "error" being accepted as truth. Void of error there would be nothing to feed the populous in order to achieve some objective means. Error being taught and accepted as a form of truth (as is the premise presented in this thread) is the very source of attack one can expect with the evil that resides in this world.

Thus, Satan is always vigilant in the attempt to make sure that error remains empowered. Securely, Governmentally, Socially and Religiously.

There is nothing like THE TRUTH, the whole truth, so help you God to put the minions of Satan on the defensive in a dead run away from that truth. All one need do is teach the TRUTH as instructed by Christ Jesus and His Apostles (John 8:31-32, Acts 13:8-11).

Consider this as an example: When Jesus the Christ was being tempted by Satan in the hopes of corrupting the Son of God when He was in the from of man as the Son of Man......what was Jesus' response to Satan? "It is WRITTEN..........." -- Matt. 4:1-11.

If one were to follow your supposed "premise" to its ultimate conclusion........unity would never be the end result, a HALF TRUTH always promotes and ensures "DIVISION". Truths are never "subjective"........where truth exists, FACTS exist.......only "OPINIONS" can be subjective, however opinions are never considered facts if not backed by objective facts in evidence. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.........but no one is entitled to their own truth. Truth is a universal reality.
 
Last edited:
Do you comprehend the result of presenting a "half truth"? A half truth always ends the equation being a "whole lie". There are sins of "omission" as well as "commission". You begin your premise by suggesting that a SEXUAL ACT is "not really" Sexual in nature by definition. Question? Can you Point to any place in the known world where Oral Sex is not considered a sexual relation? By your definition.........Homosexuals (with sex being the very nomenclature thereof) never engage in sexual relationship because their actions deviate from the accepted missionary act of sex. Another question, how would anyone other than the 2 engaged in this non sexual act of sex..........know if Slick Willy thrusted in and out? Would that make it a sexual act? :abgg2q.jpg: Personally, there is no doubt that Slick engaged in sex............just ask the dry cleaner. Telling a "LIE" is never "ethically defensible", even a half lie.

Of all the devises used by the god of this world (Satan -- 2 Cor. 4:4) all have a common theme.........their foundation is based upon "error" being accepted as truth. Void of error there would be nothing to feed the populous in order to achieve some objective means. Error being taught and accepted as a form of truth (as is the premise presented in this thread) is the very source of attack one can expect with the evil that resides in this world.

Thus, Satan is always vigilant in the attempt to make sure that error remains empowered. Securely, Governmentally, Socially and Religiously.

There is nothing like THE TRUTH, the whole truth, so help you God to put the minions of Satan on the defensive in a dead run away from that truth. All one need do is teach the TRUTH as instructed by Christ Jesus and His Apostles (John 8:31-32, Acts 13:8-11).

Consider this as an example: When Jesus the Christ was being tempted by Satan in the hopes of corrupting the Son of God when He was in the from of man as the Son of Man......what was Jesus' response to Satan? "It is WRITTEN..........." -- Matt. 4:1-11.

If one were to follow your supposed "premise" to its ultimate conclusion........unity would never be the end result, a HALF TRUTH always promotes and ensures "DIVISION". Truths are never "subjective"........where truth exists, FACTS exist.......only "OPINIONS" can be subjective, however opinions are never considered facts if not backed by objective facts in evidence. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.........but no one is entitled to their own truth. Truth is a universal reality.

~~~~~~
I refer you to William Jefferson Clinton former president of the U.S., claiming that oral copulation was not sex and asked the question of what the definition of "IS", is.


**********​
 

“The Person I Nominate will Be the First Black Woman Ever Nominated to the Supreme Court”

----​

Biden Delivers Remarks on Breyer Retirement




~~~~~~
This choice is based on Qualifications of Gender and Color, not juris prudence and acumen.
 

“The Person I Nominate will Be the First Black Woman Ever Nominated to the Supreme Court”

----​

Biden Delivers Remarks on Breyer Retirement




~~~~~~
This choice is based on Qualifications of Gender and Color, not juris prudence and acumen.

Since when do skin color, gender, and sexual practices define the qualities sought for the highest court in the land? Why is it always LIBERAL PROGESSIVES that must inject skin color and gender into any topic they are addressing? And then they have the nerve to charge others with bigotry. :disbelief: If you really define everyone as being equal........why even address gender, or skin color in the first place? Old Sigmund would be the first to point out that behind the "ID" hides the closet BIGOTRY of anyone with such a mindset.

The way progressives label minorities is the masked suggestion that the only reason they are qualified is because of skin color, as they are naturally the inferior of the majority race, and takes the affirmative action of SPECIAL placement by the smart people to help these poor inferior individuals.

Then by their own logic as recorded by recent history........any BLACK, especially a black female that reaches such high status in the political realm........they must be an UNCLE TOM that has sold out their race. But........that only applies when there is an "R" beside the name? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
As someone with formal legal education, I have spent a lot of time pondering the line between not lying, and actual lying.

To illustrate, former President Clinton famously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," [Miss Lewinsky]. This specific statement was discussed in advance with Clinton's inner circle, and WJC insisted that being the recipient of a BJ was NOT having sexual relations, which expression is/was limited to the old in & out. His advisors expressed extreme skepticism about whether this non-denial denial would be accepted by the American public*. But at least arguably his statement was not a lie. During other times when he was accused of various nefarious acts or schemes, he would respond, "There is no evidence of that." Again, he was not denying the conduct, just pointing out that there was no publicly-available evidence that he did whatever it was. As with the BJ comment, he was not lying, which I would suggest is, if not ethical, at least ethically defensible.

The country now breathlessly watches the trial of one J. Smollett in Chicago, who, time after time denies that his transaction with the two Africans was not what everybody knows it was. Is it too much to expect the American public will reject and ostracize this lying bastard, or have "we" become so desensitized to prevarication that this will be treated as just someone accused doing what accused people do?

It is clear that few politicians are punished for their public lies, even when they are obviously lying at the moment when they speak. J. Biden (46th President of the United States) claimed on more than one occasion that he had never discussed his son's foreign business activities with that son. Literally Un-Believable. And yet....he gets a pass.

Everyone expects lawyers when acting in their capacity as advocates to lie all the time. We expect sales people to lie.

But shouldn't we demand that Journalists tell the truth? That they not present information in a way that is intended to deceive.? That they not word their stories in such a way that slants reality? And what about "normal people"? Actors, business people, and anyone speaking publicly for any reason.

Lying is evil. People who lie publicly should be shunned.
_________________________________
* Ironically, Clinton's definition of "having sex" was generally accepted at the time when this whole episode was in the news. Having sex is fucking, and other forms of sexual adventurism were sexual, perhaps, but having sex only referred to having sex. It was only later, when the Gay Mafia insisted that oral and anal sex were indeed, "having sex" that Clinton had to decline to defend himself on this basis.

Oh the hypocrisy of you God bothering republicans.
Trump was recorded as telling 3500 deliberate lies and untruths but you never mumbled a word. Suddenly you quote two democrats as if it is now a damning attribute.
How convenient.
 
Oh the hypocrisy of you God bothering republicans.
Trump was recorded as telling 3500 deliberate lies and untruths but you never mumbled a word. Suddenly you quote two democrats as if it is now a damning attribute.
How convenient.
Yeah........liberal logic.........2 wrongs coverup the current lies? LMAO All is forgiven........and everything is perfect in liberal utopia.

Christian truth: (Phil. 2:12-13) Each person is responsible for their own sins. How do you know that Mr. Trump has not worked out his own sins? Yet you forgive the current lies because others have lied in the past. There is nothing honorable when it comes to lies.

What you are doing is engaging in LIBERAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION as is the "MO" of all lying ass liberals.

Psychological Projection: You deny the existence of your own evil while attempting to project your sins unto your supposed enemies.
 
Yeah........liberal logic.........2 wrongs coverup the current lies? LMAO All is forgiven........and everything is perfect in liberal utopia.
You vindicate me that most godbotherers are republican.
Very self righteous and quick to judge others in the name of your silly God.
Christian truth: (Phil. 2:12-13) Each person is responsible for their own sins. How do you know that Mr. Trump has not worked out his own sins? Yet you forgive the current lies because others have lied in the past. There is nothing honorable when it comes to lies.

There is no such thing as sin. It was fabricated by religion as a punishment. Trump has no religion what so ever and you know that but because he's Republican you include him in your little religious cabal and possibly think he was appointed by God. Did God force him to lose also?
What you are doing is engaging in LIBERAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION as is the "MO" of all lying ass liberals.
Oh the irony of ignorance. Never has a lie passed the lips of trump except those 3500 docemented but you are of as my call liberals liars.
Psychological Projection: You deny the existence of your own evil while attempting to project your sins unto your supposed enemies.

Evil is in the mind of everyone including atheists. It's nothing whatsoever connected to God who you believe projects it towards liberals. You gave a head full of religious hatred towards the left for no reason.
Why don't you stand on a street corner and tell democrats what you really think of them? You haven't got the guts but hide behind a silly name on here.
You're a fraudulent charlatan.
 
I reject the premise that making purposeful statements carefully crafted to tell the recipient of the message something that is objectively false is somehow not a lie.

That is an asinine thought, particularly considering what language and word usage is. Clinton was directly lying when he said that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinski as well as stating there 'was no evidence.' Wormlike statements do not get you out of your moral obligations.
 
The title of the thread interested me, then I was subjected an anti-Clinton diatribe.
We are witnesses to the truth of what we know. What we know isn't always objective truth. Someone with formal legal training should know this.
One of the people I bought pot from told me that his name was Joe Kool and that he lived on Morphine Drive over in Herion Alabama. The truth of what I knew was a lie that I knew to be a lie. When made to witness, I told the truth of what I knew. It was clear to the jury that my witness had been deliberately poisoned, but I was not the liar. After all, we have to protect those undercover sources and methods.
 
As someone with formal legal education, I have spent a lot of time pondering the line between not lying, and actual lying.

To illustrate, former President Clinton famously said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," [Miss Lewinsky]. This specific statement was discussed in advance with Clinton's inner circle, and WJC insisted that being the recipient of a BJ was NOT having sexual relations, which expression is/was limited to the old in & out. His advisors expressed extreme skepticism about whether this non-denial denial would be accepted by the American public*. But at least arguably his statement was not a lie. During other times when he was accused of various nefarious acts or schemes, he would respond, "There is no evidence of that." Again, he was not denying the conduct, just pointing out that there was no publicly-available evidence that he did whatever it was. As with the BJ comment, he was not lying, which I would suggest is, if not ethical, at least ethically defensible.

The country now breathlessly watches the trial of one J. Smollett in Chicago, who, time after time denies that his transaction with the two Africans was not what everybody knows it was. Is it too much to expect the American public will reject and ostracize this lying bastard, or have "we" become so desensitized to prevarication that this will be treated as just someone accused doing what accused people do?

It is clear that few politicians are punished for their public lies, even when they are obviously lying at the moment when they speak. J. Biden (46th President of the United States) claimed on more than one occasion that he had never discussed his son's foreign business activities with that son. Literally Un-Believable. And yet....he gets a pass.

Everyone expects lawyers when acting in their capacity as advocates to lie all the time. We expect sales people to lie.

But shouldn't we demand that Journalists tell the truth? That they not present information in a way that is intended to deceive.? That they not word their stories in such a way that slants reality? And what about "normal people"? Actors, business people, and anyone speaking publicly for any reason.

Lying is evil. People who lie publicly should be shunned.
_________________________________
* Ironically, Clinton's definition of "having sex" was generally accepted at the time when this whole episode was in the news. Having sex is fucking, and other forms of sexual adventurism were sexual, perhaps, but having sex only referred to having sex. It was only later, when the Gay Mafia insisted that oral and anal sex were indeed, "having sex" that Clinton had to decline to defend himself on this basis.
A BJ is a sexual act and therefore sexual relations. Clinton did lie.
Any spouse would consider a BJ an act of adultery.
 
The title of the thread interested me, then I was subjected an anti-Clinton diatribe.
We are witnesses to the truth of what we know. What we know isn't always objective truth. Someone with formal legal training should know this.
One of the people I bought pot from told me that his name was Joe Kool and that he lived on Morphine Drive over in Herion Alabama. The truth of what I knew was a lie that I knew to be a lie. When made to witness, I told the truth of what I knew. It was clear to the jury that my witness had been deliberately poisoned, but I was not the liar. After all, we have to protect those undercover sources and methods.
Clinton is a good example of riding that line though. He made statements that were clearly meant to mislead and then tried to manipulate definitions in a manner to appear truthful.


It is an excellent example to use should you be discussing where that line is.
 
Clinton is a good example of riding that line though. He made statements that were clearly meant to mislead and then tried to manipulate definitions in a manner to appear truthful.


It is an excellent example to use should you be discussing where that line is.
When you're a proven liar, no one believes anything you say.
 
When you're a proven liar, no one believes anything you say.
When pot was the undercover go to, the uc police manipulated me into lying to them hundreds of times. They were sure they had proof that I was a liar. Then they publicly coerced me into witnessing. In the end, they only proved what clever manipulators they were and what a wretched sinner I was. By the grace of God through Jesus Christ, I witnessed true.
 

Forum List

Back
Top