Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00388)

Robert-

Is there necessarily always a fine line between knowing that 
something is true versus knowing that it is untrue?  I believe that 
it is extremely common for people to insert 'halftruths' into a 
greater body of truth (99% truth and 1% falsity).  In fact, I 
generally expect this to happen whenever people open their mouths in 
virtually any context.  Oftentimes we make incorrect statements 
(more frequently than we realize), and we only catch them, if 
someone else ventures to scrutinize them.  Even though we may have 
formerly felt confident about the truth of an issue, we actually may 
find ourselves a bit confused about it when challenged concerning 
it's veracity.

In this context, I find that it is infinitely more constructive to 
challenge the veracity of a particular statement made, versus 
leveling indictments against a person's character, insofar as 
leveling indictments is inherently devisive all on it's own.  If 
afterward they still assert that an item is true after it has been 
proven false, then, and only then, will I call them a liar.  But 
beyond that specific scenario, I will just consider them to be 
confused on an issue, making unverified statements, as we all do at 
times.

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that this moral debate can be looked at in terms of the 
art
> of disinformation.  Correct me if I am wrong, but do not those 
trained
> in disinformation present as much of the truth as they can while at
> the same time slipping in misinformation because it is more likely 
to
> be taken as truth when surrounded by other truths?  If you want 
your
> enemies to believe x, then take a body of truths Y and slip in your
> disinformation.  This is simple and straight forward.
> 
> What does it mean then when a member of your own team behaves in 
this
> way?  Certainly intent is important.  If you introduce x into Y
> because you think it is true then that seems forgiveable.  But what
> does it mean when you say that you believe x to be a lie and you
> introduce it anyway?  What does that mean?  How does this clarify 
things?
> 
> It is not important to have everyone believe x, but if enough do 
then
> you have, inadvertantly or not, sown the seeds of division among a
> group.  It is not surprising that those interested in defending the
> group want to stop this type of behavior regardless of why it is 
being
> conducted. It is also understandable why those who do not identify
> with the group find this behavior unproblematic.  As individualists
> they will believe what they want.  I only hope that the 
individualists
> can bite their tongue and allow those moved by duty to defend the
> Movement.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Bruce
>