Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Sargent's theory of neurosis
Message-ID: <733@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 19:11:54 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.733
Posted: Sun Dec  2 19:11:54 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 05:42:02 EST
References: <1344@ihuxq.UUCP> <1515@pucc-h> <707@watdcsu.UUCP>, <6220@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 59

Even number of ">" signs: myself
Odd number of ">" signs: Jeff Hanes

> >Believing falsehoods is not the same as believing lies, because not all
> >falsehoods are lies.

> Johnny, give this man a Doublespeak Award.  The Oxford English Dictionary
> (Compact Edition) says,
> 	Falsehood:  The intentional making of false statements; lying.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged):
Falsehood: 1. a) absence of truth or accuracy
	      b) an untrue assertion, especially when intentional
	      c) the practice of lying
	   2. (Scots Law) the fraudulent imitation or suppression of truth
	      by words, writing or conduct to the damage of another

Definition 1b is the only one that defines a falsehood as an assertion, which
was the sense in which I was using it.  You will see from the definition
that my use of the word falsehood to mean a statement that is not true
(but not necessarily intentionally so) just barely conforms to definition 1b.

Now let's talk a little bit about honesty.  You thought you had caught me
making a mistake (an honest error, as you admit below), and you used it to
accuse me of doublespeak.  Unless you are extraordinarily stupid, you *knew*
what I meant, and I can only interpret your pouncing on it as a sleazy
debating tactic having nothing to do with proving the truth or falsity of
what I was saying.  (By the way, there is no doublespeak in my dictionary.
Perhaps you meant doubletalk?)

> >  People *have* been known to make honest mistakes,

> True.  You for instance (see above).

> >but I suppose this simple concept is beyond the intellectual grasp of the
> >average christianoid.

> I'm glad you admit we have *some* intellect.  That's awfully generous,
> patient and/or tolerant of you.

In your case, at least, it is.  (Excuse me, while I pat myself on the back.)

> >  Believing lies is not the same as lying to oneself,
> >if you have no way of knowing that you were told a lie.

> Makes it important to *seek* the truth, doesn't it?  Or did someone
> already tell you what the truth is?

You may find it hard to believe, but I *am* seeking the truth.  The trouble
with your truth is that the only evidence of it is somebody else's word.

> >Were you born a fool, or did it take years of practice?

> I could ask you the same question, but I won't.

You do not appear to be a fool as much as you appear to be unusually free
of the shackles of intellectual honesty.

	David Canzi