Is Calling Someone A Liar A Personal Insult??

This interests me because I'm about to be sanctioned for it. I think it's an interesting debate because I can see both sides, but I must conclude that I believe it is only a personal insult to call someone a liar if they are not a liar. Otherwise it is just a fact, surely? I myself am often called a liar and never complain about it, although it does irritate me when people do it. However, the irritation is predominantly because I know (and most often have evidenced) that I am telling the truth. I do not think that, if a person can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be deliberately deceiving others, they should have any right to become offended by being called a liar, because lying is merely the correct description of the action they have undertaken.

I understand that it can often be difficult to tell the difference between a mistake and a deliberately false statement, and I agree that if you have no logical grounds to argue one or the other then the term "liar" is definitely inappropriate. But not every situation is like that, and surely when someone is obviously telling outright fibs to postpone the death of their argument, it should not be an offence to point the reality of the situation out.

Anyway, like I said I can see both sides, and just thought it was an interesting topic to put up for debate.

Any thoughts?

 

You attack the post and not the poster

First rule

state that the information is in error, their source is a lying crock of rubbish but do not call the other person a liar

You can, however state that they may be ignorant of certain facts but not that they are deliberately misleading someone else

 

I think your question is interesting and I would like to see a debate on this.

But, since this concerns what Mods action would be, I believe it needs to be a question addressed directly to the mods, as we are not allowed (as per forum rules) to discuss mods' actions.

There is a specific sub-forum where you can discuss almost anything with mods, and it is private between the individual poster and the mods. I suggest you move your question there. Good luck!

But thanks for asking and trying to bring a debate over this. IF it is a thread that is accepted by the mods, I'll be happy to participate.

 

No, I'd say it's an insult as well.

 

Even when it is a "misleading statement" that is repeated at nauseum, in spite of having been disproved over and over?

What does one do then? Let the "misleading statement" stand, so it becomes "the norm" and thus begins to be the "perceived truth?"

 

yes, calling someone a "liar", is a personal attack.

 

Point out there have been repeated rebuttals disproving the point - then report the little troll

 

That makes sense! Thanks!

 

The rules are quite open to interpretation, it seems. I can tell you that your 'going against' certain 'leaders' here earns you particular scrutiny. I suppose instead of calling somebody a liar, we must be politically correct and say something like "you are not stating the facts", or some other such dance. It's ridiculous, I know. Without referring to anybody specifically, you might what to start with the letter "H" when trying to determine the origin of your targeting. Good day, bro! Keep up the fight. You're giving the specialists fits.

 

Saying "you're not telling the truth", is okay, apparently. Big difference, isn't it? You have to do the dance.

 

Yes, I do see your point here, but here is mine: I do not see it as an attack, but rather as a simple matter of fact. I do not comprehend how it is possible to deliver a personal attack by stating a matter of fact. If someone tells lies then they are a liar, just like if someone murders then they are a murderer. I'm not saying we should draw any assumptions based on those facts, but rather the use of language in this case merely states the fact that the person I am talking to has crossed a generally-accepted moral line.

The way I see it is this: if you're going to argue that calling someone a liar is unacceptable, then you've got to simultaneously argue that telling lies is unacceptable. I see that as a contradiction of itself.

 

Just denounce statements as "lies". Does the same thing.

 

Maybe if you say "Joe said, you are a liar"? In the third person?

"You are not speaking truth". I guess that's the politically correct version, though.

 

It's an insult. Calling someone a liar is a poor substitute for making an argument. You can propose that their statements are deceptive - and then proceed to show why you find them to be so. Far better to lay out the facts and let others draw their own conclusions from them. It may not always be as satisfying as calling someone a liar, but some of us are here for an adult discussion of the issues - not to witness others' self-pleasuring.

 

Calling someone a liar is a attack on their personal character.

Do people lie? Sure. I see it here every day. However, many times someone may give their view about a fact and they believe it to be true and you don't. The fact that they may be wrong doesn't make them a liar or even mean they are lying. Just wrong. But many don't see the difference between fact and opinion, or disagree with the validity of a source of the fact, or simply have different understanding of fact. And they you devolve into a flame war accusations of lying going back and forth.

If you think someone is lying, call them out on their statement and ask them to cite their source for their claim. Or post facts from a credible source showing their claim is wrong. When a member persists in asserting facts they know are false, other members can see it. You don't have to call them a liar to show they are.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a rule violation as well.

 

It's called the big lie technique. If you provide the truth, they just repeat the lie, ignore the facts, and keep insisting that you continue to disprove what has already been disproven. When you get tired of posting the facts they brag that you can't answer them.

 

Yes, I think logically my argument can be defeated by the contention that calling someone a liar is not the same thing as claiming someone has told a lie. However, what do we do when it's patterned behaviour, occurring across multiple posts? Rightly or wrongly, deviance from moral rectitude is something our language has found a way to acknowledge, and the reason that language is useful is because it helps others. All of these words: murderer, liar, traitor etc, in my opinion only become attacks when they are untrue. If they are true, then there can be no logical grounds for contention unless the word is used to deviate from the topic or to make a false implication (for example, that if someone is a demonstrable liar, then everything they say must necessarily be a lie).

If people aren't comfortable with being outed as liars, then they shouldn't be telling lies!

 

Similarly, a revolver is a poor excuse for an apple pie; but of course the reverse is true as well.

And yeah, I know PF is a debate forum, but it's more than that: it's a place where some people try to convince others that brazen lies are truths. And while one must expect to be sanctioned by management for calling such people liars here, morally speaking there isn't a damn thing wrong with it.

 

Yes. . .for individual "misleading" posts. . .but when one person repeatedly "misleads. . ." just denouncing the statements as lies doesn't really give the whole picture! Everyone can make a mistake once in awhile. . .even maybe a few purposeful "exaggerations," but when it is an on-going trend, it needs to be pointed out in some way!

 

But how can that be so if it is true? The alternative is to lie yourself, by denying that they are liars. Two wrongs can't make a right, and so it cannot be right for me to lie to avoid telling the truth that someone else is a liar. Calling someone a liar is precisely the same thing as saying: "You aren't prepared to stick to the truth". The latter would not be viewed as a violation (at least I hope not!), but the former would, despite them both meaning the precise same things!

 

Absolutely! However, I believe that the person calling the other a liar, must have good supportive evidence to to that. . .and in my experience many do not (especially those who tend to "mislead" so often!)

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly! And that should be the very definition of a troll. . .but reporting a troll doesn't seem to stop that system.

 

If it's a statement of fact, wtf is the problem? Especially if the person is intentionally making a false statement and passing it as fact.

 

Why is that the only alternative?

 

It is not a substitute for anything. Look, here is what the Word Web dictionary says a liar is:-

A person who has lied or who lies repeatedly.

Therefore, when I call someone a liar I am either stating a fact or I am not stating a fact. If I am stating a fact, then it is the truth, and I cannot be expected to deny the truth to spare the feelings of the very person who lied.

 

You'd have to get the answer from the administrator. But I'd guess it is a compromise. Saying to someone you're lying or you lie repeatedly is pretty close to calling them a liar, though there is a difference in that the latter is a comment on a person's attribute as opposed to an act. Both however affirm an assertion of intentionally making a statement known to be false. I even got a warning for writing that someone fabricated something.

Putting out their statement is untrue is acceptable, asserting that they are knowingly making an untrue statement is on the line, and asserting they have a personal characteristic of lying is definitely over it, from what I can gather.