Theos-Talk Archives (May 2002 Message tt00100)

In a message dated 05/09/02 11:55:44 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>Bill Meredith wrote:
>> 
>> ARE WE THERE YET?!
>
> Well, it is probably about time for me to explain my question.
>
> My acquaintance refused to wear a tie to work, and was fired. He was
>fired for bringing office equipment home without permission (after
>having been specifically told NOT to do so). His not wearing a tie had
>nothing to do with it. The sentence was designed to encourage people to
>jump to the conclusion that he was fired BECAUSE he refused to wear a
>tie to work. The sentence, while factually correct, was designed to
>cause people to believe something which was NOT factually correct. 
>
> So here's another question (strictly opinion, this time): Was the
>statement "An acquaintance of mine refused to wear a tie to work, and
>was fired" the truth or a lie?

The two statements in the sentence are true, but the "and" connecting them 
implies a causal connection. Therefore the sentence is an implied lie. It 
uses a common negotiatory or courtroom technique (or trick) called "implying 
the lie by telling the truth" (which can be either a partial truth or false 
logically connected multiple truths). 

In this case, the lie is only in the mind of the reader who makes a false 
judgment of the reason for the firing based on the partially true but 
cleverly formulated sentence that brings two (or more) unrelated true 
statements together as if they had causal connection. 

BTW: My purpose of forwarding the original "2 questions for thinkers" was to 
spur some interesting dialogue by pointing out how we allow ourselves to make 
personal judgments based on the linkage of two or more non sequitur truths 
that, together, imply a lie about a person's overall character or capability, 
or how we allow our prejudices to influence our judgments. Glad we all got 
the point.:-)

LHM