# Liar-Bully-Thief.  Which is the least valuable cultural trait?



## .   1

G'day Cultur@s,
Which personality trait is least productive for your community; liar, thief or bully?
In your opinion why is your opinion regarding this matter accurate?

.,,


----------



## la reine victoria

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Which personality trait is least productive for your community; liar, thief or bully?
> In your opinion why is your opinion regarding this matter accurate?
> 
> .,,


 

All three.

Nobody likes to be among liars, thieves or bullies.

LRV


----------



## .   1

la reine victoria said:


> All three.


Does this mean that you consider that a thief does as much harm as a liar?
Do you consider that a bully is equally as valuable as a thief?
Does a liar cause equal grief to a bully?

.,,


----------



## xrayspex

I think bullies are the worst, especially the all-too-common coward-bully, who takes her frustrations out on others who can't do anything to defend themselves. 

Everybody lies, at least a little, at least sometimes.   And everybody steals, at least a little, at least sometimes.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.


----------



## alexacohen

Hi:
I suppose the bully is the worst, at least according to the description Xrayspec makes of them. But the behind your back liars can be quite harmful too. As for thieves, it would depend on what they are thieving (is that correct, thieving?). 
See you soon .,,
Alexa


----------



## Patapan

I don't believe any of these are 'valuable culturally', but I'll have a go at answering the question _as asked_.

Lying can be highly productive for a community. It can provide leaders with support for an unjust war which might net benefits for their community.
Bullying can be highly productive for a community. It can lead a large country to dominate a smaller one and thus absorb it into its own culture.
Theft can be highly productive for a community. The more oil or land the community can take from another, obviously the more it prospers.

Of the three, I would say lying is the least productive because it is only a weapon in the hand of the other two. Bullying is the most productive, because you then don't need to bother with lying, and the theft is automatically included.

However, if we're allowed a tinge of moral judgement, then the question changes:

Lying can be massively detrimental to a community, and can be destructive on a huge scale, from the Ems telegram to the vile propaganda of the Nazis. However, ultimately its only casualty is truth - and is this a concept we really still own? With the rise of individualism, alongside the decline of religion or any other shared moral creed, one man's truth is already another man's lie. As long as we know everybody else might be lying, we will continue to judge for ourselves on the evidence of our own experience. And yet the community keeps going...

Theft is obviously hugely damaging on any scale, and yet culturally it has long been widely (though not universally) accepted simply as part of the 'look after number one' philosophy of life. People cheat on their tax returns. They steal pencils from their employer. They boast about a deal in which they've managed to 'put one over' someone else. Theft seems to be all right as long as you get away with it. We put up the bars and shutters against other people and continue to nick what we can for ourselves. And yet the community keeps going....

Bullying is also rife. But while it has gained some acceptance on a global level (ie Might Is Right) it has (I think) gained less within the community itself. If it ever does gain acceptance as a part of our lives, then the community ceases to exist. We become a world of predator and prey, no better than the lowest animal form we can imagine. In many ways. we're worse. Theft and Lying are really done for pleasure in themselves, but only for gain in some other way, eg a new car stereo, or that job our CV wouldn't be good enough for if we didn't jazz it up a little. Bullying takes pleasure in someone else's pain - and _that_ is the death of any idea of community at all. Bullying, for me, is the 'least productive for a community'.

My opinion is worth no more nor less than anyone else's. It's also open. These are just first thoughts. 

Not quite, actually. My first thoughts were 'They're all scumbags who ought to be exterminated' but I didn't think that quite answered the question...

Patapan


----------



## JazzByChas

LRV said:
			
		

> All three.
> 
> Nobody likes to be among liars, thieves or bullies.
> 
> LRV


 
I would agree...it's the old extension to its logical end premise...all three cause harm, which under the proper circumstances, could lead to quite dire results...


----------



## Blehh.

I think being a thief is the worst, because every other immorality stems from it.
When you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth.
When you bully someone, you steal their right to live a peaceful, happy life. 
When you kill someone, you steal their life. Not only that, you steal a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a friend from someone else. 

When I read _The Kite Runner_ by Khaled Hosseini, it completely changed my outlook on life. This is where I get my philosophy from.


----------



## .   1

I do not wish to spoil the objectivity of this thread but I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to each and every respondant.

.,,


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> I do not wish to spoil the objectivity of this thread but I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to each and every respondant.
> 
> .,,


My pleasure
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

As in most objective assessments, context is everything…
What lie has been told?
What has been stolen?
What is the extent of the bullying?
… and in which community have they occurred?

We are, individually, members of different communities - our family, our street, our neighbourhood, our workplace, our clubs and organisations etc. on up to our countries and our world. Each of them looks differently upon the traits mentioned. I couldn't possibly rank them just once and let it stand for all of my communities, and anyway I have no way of assessing any of  communities views on these things as any offender stands in relation to the offence committed and not just as an offender - in other words the guy who steals €1,000 is not just a thief, he is a €1,000 thief. The community which judges him does so in relation to its valuation of the amount.


----------



## .   1

G'day Maxi,
It's lovely to hear your voice.
I am glad that you gave in to popular demand.
What would this joint be without your sparkle and wit.
I may disagree with some of your opinions but I am very pleased to see them all.
Thanks for contributing here.




maxiogee said:


> As in most objective assessments, context is everything…


Mate, I am looking for total subjectivity.
I doubt that it is possible to be objective in these areas.
I mean, who is objectively right or wrong, it is all subjective.




maxiogee said:


> What lie has been told?





maxiogee said:


> What has been stolen?
> What is the extent of the bullying?
> … and in which community have they occurred?


I guess that I could clarify it by asking if you would dislike living next door to a thief or a liar or a bully.
Which such neighbour would possess the propensity to have the largest detrimental effect on your life?




maxiogee said:


> We are, individually, members of different communities - our family, our street, our neighbourhood, our workplace, our clubs and organisations etc. on up to our countries and our world. Each of them looks differently upon the traits mentioned. I couldn't possibly rank them just once and let it stand for all of my communities, and anyway I have no way of assessing any of communities views on these things as any offender stands in relation to the offence committed and not just as an offender - in other words the guy who steals €1,000 is not just a thief, he is a €1,000 thief. The community which judges him does so in relation to its valuation of the amount.


For the purposes of this forum you are your community.
What is your opinion?

Who is less beneficial to a community; liar, thief or bully?

.,,


----------



## Hutschi

There was a film in TV, they showed that it is an essential step for children to learn to lie (age 4 or 5)

I did not know this before. 

Would you lie to protect your family and friends in a situation of danger? Or would you prefer to betray?


----------



## robjh22

There is theft of paper clips and white lying ("you look nice today"). Both are relatively innocuous.

I can't think of any kind or degree of bullying about which I can say the same.


----------



## panjabigator

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Which personality trait is least productive for your community; liar, thief or bully?
> In your opinion why is your opinion regarding this matter accurate?
> 
> .,,




Productive eh?  Lying has its benefits if it's a white lie.  I do not lie typically, but I place white lies in their own category of harmless "ass-saving."  They are very productive for me! 

That said, I think liars are pretty much detested in my society.  America is very fast pace and we are impatient with results; we need things immediately.  So if faulty information is purposely supplied, we get pretty steamed.  But then again, who wouldn't?

Bullies are just horrible, and use "victim's" weakness to become a bully.  They vary in severity.  It can be that kid on the play ground who always mocks you or the guy at the water cooler who bullies you to his fancy.  Although I don't like bullies one bit, I don't think they are the greatest of the three evils.

Theft is the worst for me.  You violate privacy, peace of mind, trust, etc.  I just can't fathom it.  It's a type of parasitism, where one party is benefiting at the cost of another.  

Why is my opinion accurate?  I haven't the slightest clue how to answer this or why you are asking it (although it is a reasonable question!).  I think I have provided an accurate description of the three terms and contextualized them to provide refute.  That's why my opinion is accurate.


----------



## french4beth

I agree with xrayspex (Post #4) for the original question. All children lie (and they're not immoral, they're just trying to cover their little @$$e$.
I think everyone lies - whether it's a little "white lie" or an error of omission, it's part of human nature. Thievery is obviously wrong - but I have accidentally taken home pens (tucked behind an ear) from work & accidentally left elastic bands in a jacket - I don't think that makes me a thief, however! To me bullying is the worst - the damage it does is horrendous, whether it's a schoolyard bully, an abusive family member, or a government entity. At least there's theft insurance if you lose a big-ticket item, or someone embezzles a bank account - but it's very hard to undo bullying. Liars certainly cause a great deal of trouble - but I think it's very important to utilize "emotional intelligence", that is, listen to your gut instinct or that little voice inside your head & trust yourself if you're doubting what you hear. So to me, Robert, _bullying_ is the least beneficial to the community, and the hardest to undo. Again, you have to listen to yourself when something doesn't _feel_ right - it's probably bullying/abusive behavior.


----------



## Sallyb36

1) Bully
2) Thief
3) Liar.


----------



## TRG

I'm surprised that more people seem to thing the bully is the most reprehensible of the lot, but it is the only one, as far as I know, which is not defined in any way as criminal behavior.  It's not a crime to be rude, obnoxious or to push people around, especially emotionally.  People do it all the time.  Stealing has always been a crime and certain types of lying are considered criminal (fraud and perjury).  So I think lying because it is the gateway to all forms of antisocial behavior.


----------



## french4beth

I re-iterate - bullying is the most reprehensible in my opinion. Lying and stealing do not lead to irate gunman going on rampapes, as happened in Virginia, where 30 lives were lost. Loners don't become loners randomly - at least in my experience (link to story here  about Virginia Tech massacre).


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> G'day Maxi,
> It's lovely to hear your voice.
> I am glad that you gave in to popular demand.
> What would this joint be without your sparkle and wit.
> I may disagree with some of your opinions but I am very pleased to see them all.
> Thanks for contributing here.



The word _folderoo _springs to mind!
 




. said:


> Who is less beneficial to *a community*; liar, thief or bully?





. said:


> Which personality trait is least productive for *your community*


I do prefer it when people don't change the question in mid-thread.

Different communities will rate the traits differently.
A school playground bully can be a good thing for the victims if they learn to overcome him/her - but a bullying employer is rarely, if ever, a good thing for the employees.

A liar is rarely just a liar - they are also likely to be doing something nefarious which necessitates the lying. The same might be said for the average thief - to what end are they stealing? Isn't bullying usually accompanied by other misbehaviour - violence, theft, or intimidation?

All in all, I can't answer your question with a one-size-fits-all answer.

Personally I have no time for liars - particularly the sort who lie to make themselves look good. In this regard I'm a poacher turned gamekeeper - I can understand it sometimes, but it still rankles.


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> Which personality trait is least productive for your community; liar, thief or bully?
> In your opinion why is your opinion regarding this matter accurate?
> 
> .,,


 
All three of them are bad.  However, I would have to say that the liar is the worst out of them all.  The bully can be useful for putting pwople in their place and whatnot.  Sometimes--not all the time--it is the bullies that ensure the job is done.  The thief, well, let's say that I stole your car.  YOu would be able to collect the insurance money and go out an buyt another car, therefore ensuring the continuation of economic trade.  Then there is the liar.  Aside from acting, I can't see when a liar will be useful or worth anything.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I do prefer it when people don't change the question in mid-thread.


A good host must try to accomodate guest's requests.



maxiogee said:


> Different communities will rate the traits differently.
> A school playground bully can be a good thing for the victims if they learn to overcome him/her - but a bullying employer is rarely, if ever, a good thing for the employees.


Would it be better if the playground bully did not exist?
Would the corporate bully exist if the playground bully did not exist?



maxiogee said:


> A liar is rarely just a liar - they are also likely to be doing something nefarious which necessitates the lying. The same might be said for the average thief - to what end are they stealing? Isn't bullying usually accompanied by other misbehaviour - violence, theft, or intimidation?


Ahh!  Is this a question cusp?



maxiogee said:


> All in all, I can't answer your question with a one-size-fits-all answer.


Thanks for giving it a go.



maxiogee said:


> Personally I have no time for liars - particularly the sort who lie to make themselves look good. In this regard I'm a poacher turned gamekeeper - I can understand it sometimes, but it still rankles.


Mate, I couldn't tell enough lies to make myself look good, especially here, these people are not thick.
You consider it a lie and I consider it reaching out to an old mate.
I say tomatoe and you say potato, lets call the whole thing off.

.,,


----------



## TRG

french4beth said:


> I re-iterate - bullying is the most reprehensible in my opinion. Lying and stealing do not lead to irate gunman going on rampapes, as happened in Virginia, where 30 lives were lost. Loners don't become loners randomly - at least in my experience (link to story here about Virginia Tech massacre).


 
I think during the course of reading the responses I lost touch with the original question, as often happens. I would have to say that I do not know which trait is the least valuable. However, I think it quite a stretch to attribute the VT rampage to bullying, unless you think that being a bully is a severe mental disorder.


----------



## Pirlo

I think that it doesn't matter the extent taken in practicing these traits. I strongly believe that if you have the ability to steal a insignificant object, you certainly have the ability to steal an object of importance, whether it be to society or somebody.

I think that a lier is the least valuable trait.. one would hope that bullying wouldn't exist beyond the teenage years, however, it's becoming quite apparent that some people never mature. 

Also, lying and theft tend to go hand in hand. If I may make a generalisation, I can humbly say that 90% of "pathological liers" have at some stage in life committed theft, and bullying also.


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> I think during the course of reading the responses I lost touch with the original question, as often happens. I would have to say that I do not know which trait is the least valuable. However, I think it quite a stretch to attribute the VT rampage to bullying, unless you think that being a bully is a severe mental disorder.



I have no idea about the motivations of the killer in this case, but experiences of being bullied -- either by individuals or by institutions -- have been known to lead people into a state of uncontrollable hatred and rage in which they would commit similar acts. This is obviously relevant for the topic.

As for the other two types of behavior mentioned in the thread title, I'd say that the problem is that they aren't defined as clearly as bullying. Certain forms of lying, for example, are a normal part of the proper social etiquette in our modern society, but few people think of themselves as liars for this reason.


----------



## .   1

french4beth said:


> I re-iterate - bullying is the most reprehensible in my opinion. Lying and stealing do not lead to irate gunman going on rampapes, as happened in Virginia, where 30 lives were lost. Loners don't become loners randomly - at least in my experience (link to story here about Virginia Tech massacre).



In any system where law mimics war 
justice melds with vengeance 
and social ills are ignored
such society must fear our outcasts​ 
SERIAL VICTIMS​

Pathetic social outcast from his lonely bastard birth to a victim of the system barely more than girl herself

Awkward wayward grieving young one groping blindly and alone through a system of lost victims one sad lonely human bone

So he grew away from manhood through a youth of smiling blows hunted victims in our system breaking lives he could not know

Each chosen one he rendered with a fury cold as glass saw a system crammed with victims love lost long lonely past

Took his power from their horror felt fulfilled when he was there with the victims in his system hit pain hurt to strip them bare

Sister mother other lover how to hold and who to curse as the system gave each victim life lone lowly base and worse

In the dying light I caught you raging swiftly unaware when a victim used the system told us when to go and where

So we joined you on the mean streets tracked and trapped you fair and square used my system you my victim ghastly predators beware

Think of us at each post mortem while you watch your time pass by our brutal victim riddled system where we all pay for all crime

We all pay for all crime we all pay for all time 

_Each social outcast is our lonely bastard birth_


----------



## alexacohen

french4beth said:


> I re-iterate - bullying is the most reprehensible in my opinion.


Right, and there is another thing: anyone who knows the suffering a kid can go through when systematically attacked by the school bullies will realize how dangerous they can be.
Kids can lie too, I know. But the "Mum, I have done all my homework, really" cannot compare with the destroying behaviour of a bully. For god's sake, Maxiogee, how can you say that 





> "A school playground bully can be a good thing for the victims if they learn to overcome him/her"????


We have had here in Spain several teenegers who killed themselves because they thought death was better than facing the school bullies day after day. And who said so in their suicide notes.
What the bullies said in their defense? "We were just joking".
Alexa


----------



## xrayspex

_Sometimes--not all the time--it is the bullies that ensure the job is done._ 

I think that idea deserves some exploration.   And I'm not defending bullies, as we're defining them here (see my post above.) However, somewhere between wimp and bully there may be a productive balance, which produces that person that moves society forward.


----------



## LouisaB

alexacohen said:


> For god's sake, Maxiogee, how can you say that


[quote/] A school playground bully can be a good thing for the victims if they learn to overcome him/her??? [/quote]

maxiogee can say it because it's what the original question asked for. As he pointed out himself, the question has changed in mid-thread. It is, I have to say, difficult to imagine why. It would be very easy to start a thread asking for a totally disinterested, objective opinion on (say) what we think is wrong with the creeds of other races, then halfway through make a post observing piously what racist bigots we all are. Personally I can't see the point in that kind of thing, as it merely makes the original poster look good while belittling everyone who's tried to participate, but, hey, each to his own. I notice maxiogee has withdrawn from the forum again, and while I totally understand that (having done it myself for four months), I think it's tragic for all of us.

Apologies for the digression. With everything else in your post, alexa, I 100% agree. Bullying is the worst and most destructive of all these behaviours. If a parent had to choose, which would they least like to hear their child had done at school? Told a lie? Stolen something? Or become a bully? Surely it would be the last? I am not actually a parent, by the way, so I've no real right to make that point - I'd be interested to hear from anyone who _is _a parent who would disagree.

I do not in any way defend lying or stealing - I loathe them both. But I can imagine circumstances to justify either, eg most white lies, or if someone's starving and steals a loaf of bread. But what can ever justify bullying? Using your own muscle (whether it's economic, physical or mental) to put somebody else down for your own pleasure is just plain wrong.

That's only my personal opinion. But we're now asked for subjectivity, so I hope that's all right.

Louisa


----------



## Patapan

LouisaB said:


> maxiogee can say it because it's what the original question asked for.


 
I concur with this. I should just add that my own last post was in response to the original question - just in case anyone imagines I believe theft, lying or bullying to be genuinely valuable to a community!  



LouisaB said:


> But what can ever justify bullying? Using your own muscle (whether it's economic, physical or mental) to put somebody else down for your own pleasure is just plain wrong.


 
I agree with this too, but I think perhaps what we need is a definition of bullying. In my opinion it's more than just what happens in the playground, or in those of teenage years - a bully is anyone who pushes 'weaker' people around, ie those who can't hit back. At his worst extreme, a bully can be a murderer. That's another reason why I think it's the worst of the three - it can lead to the worst crimes.


----------



## alexacohen

xrayspex said:


> I think bullies are the worst, especially the all-too-common coward-bully, who takes her frustrations out on others who can't do anything to defend themselves.
> 
> Everybody lies, at least a little, at least sometimes. And everybody steals, at least a little, at least sometimes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.


I was using this definition of "bully"·  
There are many kinds of lies, someone has already mentioned "white lies",
and taking pencils/lighters/biros which are not your own is quite common (and many times these things are "stolen" inadvertently). These kind of lies and thefts are not necessarily dangerous. But in my opinion, and according to Xrayspex definition of a bully, bullying is always dangerous.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

Hello Louisa B:


LouisaB said:


> [quote/] A school playground bully can be a good thing for the victims if they learn to overcome him/her???


 


> maxiogee can say it because it's what the original question asked for. As he pointed out himself, the question has changed in mid-thread. It is, I have to say, difficult to imagine why.
> Louisa


Of course Maxiogee can write his opinion, that's what we were asked for. It's just that I cannot agree with him. I am the mother of a partially deaf daughter, who has been bullied unmercilessly at school, and who has suffered ENORMOUSLY. So I'm touchy with the subject. I cannot see what good can it be for any child to be bullied; even if they overcome it, what about the suffering they went through? Surely they are victims because they suffer. I can't agree that any suffering may be good for an innocent victim under any circumstances.
I did not understand what was wrong with rephrasing the question. For me, it was the same question asked in a different way. After all, we all come from different cultures, and may understand things differently. What can be possibly wrong with making your meaning clearer?
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> Hello Louisa B:
> 
> 
> Of course Maxiogee can write his opinion, that's what we were asked for. It's just that I cannot agree with him. I am the mother of a partially deaf daughter, who has been bullied unmercilessly at school, and who has suffered ENORMOUSLY. So I'm touchy with the subject. I cannot see what good can it be for any child to be bullied; even if they overcome it, what about the suffering they went through? Surely they are victims because they suffer.


No! No! No! Your daughter, if she has overcome the problem, is a survivor. Victims are only victims if they stay in their victimhood. The mugged person who becomes too frightened to leave their house is a victim, the wallowers in self-pity are victims. Those who tackle the problem (whether it be be changing themselves or by dealing with the external issues) are not victims.



alexacohen said:


> I can't agree that any suffering may be good for an innocent victim under any circumstances.


What's an innocent victim? Are not all victims innocent? Suffering is good if, coming through it, we change into better people.
There can be no true understanding of goodness unless one has encountered badness, and we need all the encountering we can get if we are to be able to have any sympathy with our fellows - those who are in positions and conditions which we perceive as worse than ours.





alexacohen said:


> I did not understand what was wrong with rephrasing the question. For me, it was the same question asked in a different way. After all, we all come from different cultures, and may understand things differently. What can be possibly wrong with making your meaning clearer?
> Alexa



But is it 'clearer', or has a different question been asked?
There are three versions of the question so far. 
The thread title asks
*Liar-Bully-Thief. Which is the least valuable cultural trait?
*The opening post asks
*Which personality trait is least productive for your community; liar, thief or bully?*
And .,, then asked me
*Who is less beneficial to a community; liar, thief or bully?*
These are all looking for different things and setting the question in different groups. To put it very simply, there are various roles in society which are not productive or beneficial per se but which need to be fulfilled from time to time and are therefore valuable. How, for example, would one rate a spy or a police informer from the criminal element of society - society needs them but they shouldn't go looking for civil recognition, I would suggest.
Then there are the differences between 'your community' and the generalised 'a community'.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> How, for example, would one rate a spy or a police informer from the criminal element of society - society needs them but they shouldn't go looking for civil recognition, I would suggest.


Thank you for your productive opinion.  I will keep it firmly in mind.
If the questions confuse or irritate you perhaps we may digress.

.,,


----------



## curly

Hello 
Lying seems to have benefits, socially at least, and those who lie typically do it for a reason.

Theivery has benefits for the theif.

Bullying doesn't give anything of value to anybody( On the arguement that it helps to build a tougher skin, if there was no bullying there'd be no need for the tougher skin)
Only bullying is something that could disappear tomorrow and leave everyone happier.
I hate bullies.
That's just how I feel.


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> No! No! No! Your daughter, if she has overcome the problem, is a survivor. Victims are only victims if they stay in their victimhood. The mugged person who becomes too frightened to leave their house is a victim, the wallowers in self-pity are victims. Those who tackle the problem (whether it be be changing themselves or by dealing with the external issues) are not victims.
> 
> What's an innocent victim? Are not all victims innocent? Suffering is good if, coming through it, we change into better people.
> There can be no true understanding of goodness unless one has encountered badness, and we need all the encountering we can get if we are to be able to have any sympathy with our fellows - those who are in positions and conditions which we perceive as worse than ours.
> 
> But is it 'clearer', or has a different question been asked?
> There are three versions of the question so far.
> The thread title asks
> *Liar-Bully-Thief. Which is the least valuable cultural trait?*
> The opening post asks
> *Which personality trait is least productive for your community; liar, thief or bully?*
> And .,, then asked me
> *Who is less beneficial to a community; liar, thief or bully?*
> These are all looking for different things and setting the question in different groups. To put it very simply, there are various roles in society which are not productive or beneficial per se but which need to be fulfilled from time to time and are therefore valuable. How, for example, would one rate a spy or a police informer from the criminal element of society - society needs them but they shouldn't go looking for civil recognition, I would suggest.
> Then there are the differences between 'your community' and the generalised 'a community'.


So my daughter has survived, yes. So have many others. And there are others who didn't. Does that make them unfit to live? Victims are victims forever. Victims are all innocent.
I cannot disagree with you more. Anyone who has had to see her child abused, insulted, robbed, excluded, and has had to see the suffering and the tears, cannot acccept your premise. I cannot accept that because a child has survived, he/she is not a victim anymore.
That you cannot see the scars doesn't mean he/she has none.
There are different kinds of suffering. The suffering of an abused child does not make him or her better. It just maimes him or her. That she or he learns to live with the maiming does not mean they are not maimed for ever.
I still don't see that the question was changed. After all, no one can speak for an entire community. Every time we speak is from an entirely personal point of view. 
Alexa


----------



## .   1

alexacohen said:


> I still don't see that the question was changed. After all, no one can speak for an entire community. Every time we speak is from an entirely personal point of view.
> Alexa


I, myself, personally, in my own opinion based on my own experiences and my own knowledge and my own personal baggage find it difficult to gainsay this personally held, privately formed cogent word pattern.

.,,


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> Hello
> Lying seems to have benefits, socially at least, and those who lie typically do it for a reason.
> 
> Theivery has benefits for the theif.
> 
> Bullying doesn't give anything of value to anybody( On the arguement that it helps to build a tougher skin, if there was no bullying there'd be no need for the tougher skin)
> 
> 
> 
> Only bullying is something that could disappear tomorrow and leave everyone happier.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate bullies.
> That's just how I feel.
Click to expand...

That is nothing like any answer that I have envisaged.
What a perfectly logical response.
To apply Occam's Razor.

Only bullying could disappear and leave everyone happier.

Thanks mate
Robert


----------



## Genecks

I dislike the deceptive more than all the above. I can beat down a bully. I can figure out when I'm being lied to. And I tend to know how to track down thiefs like a loan shark.

However, the deceptive person tends to anger me more than anyone else. It is such a person that keeps others within an illusion.


----------



## .   1

Genecks said:


> I can beat down a bully.


Is not prevention better than cure?



Genecks said:


> However, the deceptive person tends to anger me more than anyone else. It is such a person that keeps others within an illusion.


Is this not a lie?

EDIT: I do not call Genecks a liar in any way or even hinted at.
I am saying that the deceptive person can still classified as a lie. This has nothing to do with Genecks.

.,,


----------



## ireney

Mod's Note. Let's keep it nice and general shall we? Snide comments are not welcome in the forums


----------



## alexacohen

Genecks said:


> I dislike the deceptive more than all the above. I can beat down a bully. I can figure out when I'm being lied to. And I tend to know how to track down thiefs like a loan shark.
> 
> However, the deceptive person tends to anger me more than anyone else. It is such a person that keeps others within an illusion.


But I can't beat down a bully! A person may deceive for many reasons (I'm not saying good reasons, mind you). A bully tortures because he/she gets pleasure in torture. A person who gets his/her happiness making others suffer, or watching others suffer... this is base beyond imagining. For me, at least.
Alexa


----------



## ireney

There's always a bully that's stronger than you are. Bullies rely on strength of any kind and there will be someone stronger than you or richer than you or whatever who can bully you around (you is general here people).

That said, I am not sure which is worse of the three. They all can hurt you in completely different ways. Some people can deal better with one kind of hurt than the other. I guess therefore that it depends.


----------



## swift_precision

Bullying helps build "tougher skin" correct? I'm sure all the bullying done by various warlords in various countries to various POW's helped those individuals build such a tough layer of skin that they probably have forgotten all of the sweet memories of having been physically and emotionally tortured day after day and hour after hour and who, incidentally probably don't suffer from any nightmares. Ah yes, indeed they are survivors who remain compotent and productive members of society who don't let pety insults get to them because they have endured far more tragic and painful bullying of a different variety. Yes, surely this must be the case. 


"No, honey she's just a client, that's all." 
Later that night, wife comes home from work and finds husband in bed with client, apparently showing her the new proposal ideas.


"I am certain that with your financial support, this will be a prosperous business venture. It has been a pleasure doing business with you." Mr. X has just secured a business deal with Mr. Y who (unbeknowst to Mr. X) has actually secured quite a few many business deals with other people and who later mysteriously dissapears, along with all the financial savings of his previous business partners.



Hard to pick - but I would say bullying is the worst. 

Aureliano Buendia.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> Hello
> Lying seems to have benefits, socially at least, and those who lie typically do it for a reason.
> 
> Theivery has benefits for the theif.
> 
> Bullying doesn't give anything of value to anybody( On the arguement that it helps to build a tougher skin, if there was no bullying there'd be no need for the tougher skin)
> Only bullying is something that could disappear tomorrow and leave everyone happier.
> I hate bullies.
> That's just how I feel.



If lying 'benefits' the liar, and thieving 'benefits' the thief - then surely bullying 'benefits' the bully by bolstering their feeble ego and giving them a sense of empowerment?
All three would leave everyone happier if they disappeared. There would be more openness and freedom if the security of our possessions was not an issue, and there would be a huge increase in trust if we knew that what people told us was true.

As to the 'no need for a tougher skin' point, we all come up against knocks and difficulties in life. A tougher skin is an advantage in dealing with them. There are undoubtedly better ways to acquire that than by having to deal with bullies but there are better ways to acquire many social skills than the ones we are stuck with, the ones life throws at us.


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> If lying 'benefits' the liar, and thieving 'benefits' the thief - then surely bullying 'benefits' the bully by bolstering their feeble ego and giving them a sense of empowerment?
> All three would leave everyone happier if they disappeared.



However, I would say that lying can be beneficial for everyone in certain situations. Sometimes it's better for everyone to simply leave a wrong impression about one's feelings, thoughts, and actions if the truth would only provoke discord and strife. For example, when some members of my family (whom I otherwise respect) start talking about their staunchly held, but completely absurd political views, I'll just pretend to agree and change the topic as quickly as possible. I think this is much better than to provoke an argument that won't change anyone's views, but will just end in a pointless quarrel -- which is what would happen if I told them honestly what I think about their opinions. 

Lying can also be very beneficial in dealing with bureaucracy, in situations when a plain statement of facts would trigger some insane rule that would make one's life miserable by endlessly complicating what should be a routine procedure. For example, when I lived in Croatia, I wanted to have a valid passport all the time regardless of whether I had any travel plans -- it takes a while to get it, and for all I know, I might suddenly need it tomorrow. But in order to get the passport, I had to fill a form about my exact travel plans -- you couldn't request it just in case you need it on a short notice. Of course, like me, everyone wanted to have a passport all the time regardless of any current travel plans (it's a tiny country!), and everyone would fill those stupid forms with lies about fictional travel plans as soon as their passports would expire. Obviously, nobody was harmed by that lying, and it saved many people lots of trouble.

I can easily think of many more examples where lying seems to be clearly beneficial for everyone. Honestly, who would like to live in a world where everything is publicly known about everyone? And if you want to have any secrets in front of anyone, you'll occasionally have to lie to protect them.


----------



## alexacohen

Athaulf said:


> Lying can also be very beneficial in dealing with bureaucracy, in situations when a plain statement of facts would trigger some insane rule that would make one's life miserable by endlessly complicating what should be a routine procedure. .


You're right, Athaulf. My doctor lied for me and extended a certificate stating I was not fit to work. Because of that lie, I could stay at the hospital with my desperately ill two years old. If he hadn't lied, I would have had to go to work and my baby would have been alone in that hospital.
There are a lot of lies that are necessary.
Alexa


----------



## Joca

If I am entitled to say something, I will simply endorse what has been said: the bully seems to be the worst especially in terms of children, although I am afraid bullying is unavoidable, given human nature as it is. I think it can be minimized and you can find strategies to cope with it, but I don't think it can be eliminated from the face of the earth. I know what it is: I was bullied all my way through high school, and of course the memories of it are not pleasant. Let it be.

As for lying: since words have been in use, much of what we say is said, willy-nilly, to hide our thoughts, if not to pad out our speeches. Isn't this a softer side of lying that all of us practise every day?

Theft. Here's a curious example: I raise hens in my back garden. Every morning I invariably "steal" a couple of eggs from them. Strictly speaking, am I not stealing? I know, I know: I give them food and shelter, so I am entitled to have something in return from them. But if you extend this to the larger picture... We have been "stealing" from nature for ages on end, and what is worst, we seldom, if ever, worry about putting back what we took.  

All in all, it is hard to give a definitive answer to the original question, which is highly subjective in my opinion, but were it a multiple-choice test, I would tick "bully".


----------



## Hutschi

alexacohen said:


> You're right, Athaulf. My doctor lied for me and extended a certificate stating I was not fit to work. Because of that lie, I could stay at the hospital with my desperately ill two years old. If he hadn't lied, I would have had to go to work and my baby would have been alone in that hospital.
> There are a lot of lies that are necessary.
> Alexa


 
Hi Alexa, may be you was fit to work, but I'm in daubt. I think your doctor knew what happened. I suppose, you just thought you was fit to work, but in reality you wasn't. May be it was a self-protection lie - you did not want to disappoint the others at work and had to find an excuse to yourself. What does ist mean: to be fit for work? The doctor helped you to become fit for work.


----------



## alexacohen

Hutschi:
It was a lie. What I am trying to point out is that lies are many times necessary. Maxiogee said of liars (thiefs and bullies): All three would leave everyone happier if they disappeared.  And I think this statement is a lie in itself.
Just imagine your best friend, a lovely girl called Cinderella, is involved in an awful car crash.  Both her arms and her legs are smashed to pieces. The doctor says to you it's very likely Cinderella will not be able to walk properly ever again.
Now you go visit Cinderella, and she asks you if you think she will be able to walk properly again.
What would you say? 
A- Sorry, mate, don't count on it. The doctor says that 's not likely. (truth)
B- Yes, dear, it will be very hard, but I think you can make it.
(lie).
I would say B. A total, absolute, and complete lie. 
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> You're right, Athaulf. My doctor lied for me and extended a certificate stating I was not fit to work. Because of that lie, I could stay at the hospital with my desperately ill two years old. If he hadn't lied, I would have had to go to work and my baby would have been alone in that hospital.
> There are a lot of lies that are necessary.
> Alexa


 
I would argue that your doctor shouldn't have been put in the position of having to lie. Your employer (or the state) should have automatically made whatever arangements were necessary for you to be at your child's bedside.
That he lied was necessitated by the circumstances - the circumstances should have been different.
There are doctors here in Ireland who are known to sign a sick certificate for almost anyone who asks for one. They are doing what your doctor did, but for less, or even no, reason - so, between them with 0% justification and your doctor with 100% justification there is a continuum - if we go backwards from your doctor's position, at what point along the line does it become wrong to sign the certificate?


----------



## Joca

I would think that Alexa was in the least emotionally unfit for work at the time. So her doctor was right. There was no lie. If I had a child in a hospital, I would not be able to focus on my work, even if I had no current health problem. 

As for what Maxiogee says, I think the worst case is when a doctor is bribed to sign the document, there being no real need for it, not even an emotional justification.


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> There are doctors here in Ireland who are known to sign a sick certificate for almost anyone who asks for one. They are doing what your doctor did, but for less, or even no, reason - so, between them with 0% justification and your doctor with 100% justification there is a continuum - if we go backwards from your doctor's position, at what point along the line does it become wrong to sign the certificate?


I don't know, Maxiogee. I don't know at what point a lie is justified or not. I do lie. I will lie to protect my children, to protect my family, to protect my friends (my Cinderella friend is real). I won't lie to get someone into trouble, to gain access to a better paid job, to make other people believe I am a better person than I really am.
But I don't know where to draw the line. If a lie is a deviation from the truth, yes, I am a liar.
Alexa


----------



## Joca

alexacohen said:


> I don't know, Maxiogee. I don't know at what point a lie is justified or not. I do lie. I will lie to protect my children, to protect my family, to protect my friends (my Cinderella friend is real). I won't lie to get someone into trouble, to gain access to a better paid job, to make other people believe I am a better person than I really am.
> But I don't know where to draw the line. If a lie is a deviation from the truth, yes, I am a liar.
> Alexa


 
I can't help admiring Alexa's courage to speak up.

Maybe we should be less concerned with the abysmal and certainly methaphysical question truth versus lie than with what, all things considered, feels right for you to say or do at any given moment.

JC


----------



## Joca

alexacohen said:


> ... I won't lie to get someone into trouble, to gain access to a better paid job, to make other people believe I am a better person than I really am.
> ...
> Alexa


 
Can we honestly say that art equals truth? Isn't art an enlightened sort of lie?

I also think that it's an inherent desire of (almost) every human being to look better, if to become better is not possible. We often strive to do so not only with words, but also with our clothes, surroundings, environment, etc. I don't think this is necessarily a lie. In fact, looking better seems to be the first step towards becoming better. 

JC


----------



## swift_precision

Joca said:


> I can't help admiring Alexa's courage to speak up.
> 
> Maybe we should be less concerned with the abysmal and certainly methaphysical question truth versus lie than with what, all things considered, feels right for you to say or do at any given moment.
> 
> JC


 
So I guess it if it feels right for me to break into someone's house and perhaps steal someone's assault rifle because I suspsect (but have no hardcore evidence) that he is engaged in drug transactions then lie about it when I am asked about it that would be acceptable? How about focusing on what would be more _rational _instead of what "feels' right in a given moment. The "feel right to you" mentality is what results in people dying everyday.


----------



## alexacohen

swift_precision said:


> So I guess it if it feels right for me to break into someone's house and perhaps steal someone's assault rifle because I suspsect (but have no hardcore evidence) that he is engaged in drug transactions then lie about it when I am asked about it that would be acceptable? How about focusing on what would be more _rational _instead of what "feels' right in a given moment. The "feel right to you" mentality is what results in people dying everyday.





> Originally Posted by *maxiogee*


You have misunderstood Joca completely. He was referring to Maxiogee's post above about lying, and that was all. Don't pick at a person words to twist his meaning, please. If you think his meaning is not clear, then simply ask what he means.
Alexa


----------



## swift_precision

alexacohen said:


> You have misunderstood Joca completely. He was referring to Maxiogee's post above about lying, and that was all. Don't pick at a person words to twist his meaning, please. If you think his meaning is not clear, then simply ask what he means.
> Alexa


 
If I have misunderstood what he has said, then I apologize.  I will not retract what I have said though.  This is what these forums are for.  If he wishes to clarify what it is he was saying I am sure he is more than capable of doing so.


----------



## alexacohen

swift_precision said:


> If I have misunderstood what he has said, then I apologize. I will not retract what I have said though. This is what these forums are for. If he wishes to clarify what it is he was saying I am sure he is more than capable of doing so.


Yes, but he is not here. Joca and I are native of the same family of Roman languages, Portuguese and Spanish. Obviously we don't talk the same way as an English Language native would do. We are foreigners to your language. 
Sorry if I have been carried off, but I have had my words twisted in the same way. In Spanish, and in Portuguese too, "to do a thing that we feel is right" is both morally and rationally the correct thing to do.
The situation you suggested would never be envisaged as "doing what I feel is right".
I hope I have clarified it.
Is it OK now?
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> I don't know, Maxiogee. I don't know at what point a lie is justified or not. I do lie. I will lie to protect my children, to protect my family, to protect my friends (my Cinderella friend is real). I won't lie to get someone into trouble, to gain access to a better paid job, to make other people believe I am a better person than I really am.
> But I don't know where to draw the line. If a lie is a deviation from the truth, yes, I am a liar.
> Alexa



As I said earlier, I am a poacher turned gamekeeper in this regard.
In my days as a practising alcoholic I was an inveterate and accomplished liar.
Changing my life around necessitated a major change to the way I behaved. It wasn't something I necessarily wanted to do, or found easy to do, but I know full well that I would not be alive today had I not made those changes.
I don't claim that I never lie nowadays, but I am a lot slower to do it, and it always requires much soul-searching. I will do anything else first to achieve the desired end.
This is why I have 'exposed' myself here in various threads regarding my condition and my state of mental health also. It's generally easier than either half-truths or half-lies.

I don't see any real difference in the value of the traits Robert offered us - he too obviously sees them as negatives from the way he set the problem before us. My doubt is that there is a ranking at all, it's like asking which is more valuable to society, a priest, a doctor or a traffic warden - they all have their places in the world we live in - would that we didn't need any of them (a world without religion, or illness, or traffic congestion would be a better place automatically) but we find ourselves requiring their services and how can we compare them. Conversely we have little time for and don't wish to require the services of a liar, a thief or a bully, but there are those who would say that every time we elect and re-elect a politician previously known to have lied in office we endorse their lying, and the same can be said of the person who knows someone who can get item X "cheap" - we endorse the thieving. By not prosecuting a bully (because we don't want the hassle, or we're afraid they'll retaliate) we leave them at liberty to pick on someone else.

We can all, given specific circumstances, say "Ah well, in _that_ case, I'd approve of (pick a frowned-on behaviour), but only in those circumstances."


----------



## Joca

swift_precision said:


> If I have misunderstood what he has said, then I apologize. I will not retract what I have said though. This is what these forums are for. If he wishes to clarify what it is he was saying I am sure he is more than capable of doing so.


 
Yes, I was referring to Maxiogee's post right above, my opinion being that the practicability of your doing or saying or rather the good effect of what you say or do can be more important, more consequential than lingering on the endless debate: where or when does deviating from the truth is undesirable? Never had I in my mind that in order to pursuit the "right" or rational, if your prefer, objective you should break the law and commit a crime or be totally arbitrary. I am talking about "normal" people, as I think most of us belonging to this forum are, people who are capable of mature judgment and can stand up for what they have done or said. 

I apologize to you, Swift Precision, if I was not precise enough in my first piece, but this is indeed a very difficult subject and anyone is prone to give it different interpretations and attach extensions to it. Thanks to your intervention, I was able to go deeper into my thought, and I hope I have made it clearer it to you now where I stand.

Thanks to Alexa for her timely rescue. 

JC


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> I don't see any real difference in the value of the traits Robert offered us - he too obviously sees them as negatives from the way he set the problem before us.


I do, Maxiogee. They have all negative traits. But, lies may be sometimes necessary (I'm not saying good). If a person is hungry he may become a thief. We have a lot of thieving done by poor, desperate illegal inmigrants who steal fruit, vegetables, a hen if they can get hold of it. I'm not saying this is a good thing, either.
And then there is the bully. For me, this is the worst trait of the three. A bully is a person who rejoices in the suffering of others. The worst kind of person. A sadist.
Give me thieving and lying any time, I can cope with them. I don't want a sadistic bully near me, or my family, ever.
Alexa


----------



## .   1

swift_precision said:


> So I guess it if it feels right for me to break into someone's house and perhaps steal someone's assault rifle because I suspsect (but have no hardcore evidence) that he is engaged in drug transactions then lie about it when I am asked about it that would be acceptable?


Why would it feel right for you to break the law and place yourself at risk of being killed by an armed drug dealer rather than dropping a dime to the police?
This is a hypothetically self contradictory premise.
Why would it feel right to lie about what you have done if you felt that what you had done is right?
This example requires an acceptance that breaking and entering, stealing and lying are all able to be rationalised as 'feeling right'.
I have never met such a person and I do not think such convoluted rationalisations possible.



swift_precision said:


> How about focusing on what would be more _rational _instead of what "feels' right in a given moment. The "feel right to you" mentality is what results in people dying everyday.


I took the original 'feel right' to mean 'rational'.  I do not undersatnd how to split 'feel right' and 'rational'.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> I would argue that your doctor shouldn't have been put in the position of having to lie. Your employer (or the state) should have automatically made whatever arangements were necessary for you to be at your child's bedside.
> That he lied was necessitated by the circumstances - the circumstances should have been different.



But you are now presenting a substantially different claim from your earlier one. Earlier you claimed that "all three [including lying] would leave everyone happier if they disappeared" without any additional qualifications that along with their disappearance, the world should also become a very different place in other respects. But this way, you can prove that anything is fundamentally negative and undesirable, because for any human activity, you can construct a scenario where the world would change profoundly so that it's now superfluous and clearly damaging.


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> But this way, you can prove that anything is fundamentally negative and undesirable, because for any human activity, you can construct a scenario where the world would change profoundly so that it's now superfluous and clearly damaging.



I disagree. I don't think I changed anything. I offered a contrast.
My view is that the doctor has damaged his reputation by lying. S/He may not have been found out yet, but if, or when, the deceit is revealed, they will be likely to suffer for their actions.
My point was that the loss of a priest/doctor/traffic warden wouldn't make the world better, it would be better so therefore we wouldn't need them - they going out of business would be a consequence of the betterment, not the other way around as the situation would be with the loss of the liar, the bully and the thief (and the Cook and the Wife and the Lover ).


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *maxiogee*
> A liar is rarely just a liar - they are also likely to be doing something nefarious which necessitates the lying.


Well, as I have already admitted that I'm a liar, and, according to Maxiogee, that makes me an undesirable person who should be banished from good and morally correct society, the only thing left for me is to look for a place where people lie, too, and are not ashamed of admitting it.


> Mate, I couldn't tell enough lies


So, Robert, do do you think that a 35 year old liar with three kids would be admitted in Australia? 
(Assorted zoo of domestic pets included)
Alexa


----------



## .   1

alexacohen said:


> So, Robert, Athaulf, do do you think that a 35 year old liar with three kids would be admitted in Australia? Croatia?
> Alexa


Mate, I'd be bullshitting you if I said that all the Aussies I know didn't hate thieves.  We have fine exceptions on little tiny thefts like telephone calls at work and such like but a thief is a thief and no one is comfortable with a thief.
I'd be drawing a very long bow to try to claim that bullies are not utterly reviled down under.  Our genetic memory of The Dreaded Lash is too recent.  My grandfather knew people with scars from The Lash weilded by State sponsored official Bullies.  Many Koori languages call cops 'bullyman'.  Native Australians had no word or concept for 'Police'.

I do not accept that your doctor lied.
You work in an airline.
Just imagine that you had gone to work.  What good would you have been to anybody?  How many people would have arrived at the same destination as their luggage.
How many mild moaners would you have snapped at because you had real problems not just a vegan meal request or a first class upgrade for a celebrity goat.
Your doctor would have been remiss to send you to work as an Air Traffic Controller.
You were not well.  You were quite probably clinically insane for a short period.  My daughter faced medical death when she was five and she was in one of the most modern hospitals on the face of the planet.  We both nearly went mad (it is a short trip for me) but my wife pulled me through as I pulled her through.
We didn't need doctor's certificates but it wouldn't have mattered.  We would have just done what we did and then faced the consequences later - I suppose that is a definition of a form of insanity.

To sum up.
I think that a person displaying your cultured attitude would fit in rather well with our uncultural culture.

I am forming the opinion that were I to add a poll the result would be a foregone conclusion.
The bully would get the result but not understand that to win in such a manner is a total loss.

.,,


----------



## Joca

maxiogee said:


> ...
> 
> My view is that the doctor has damaged his reputation by lying. S/He may not have been found out yet, but if, or when, the deceit is revealed, they will be likely to suffer for their actions.
> ...


 
Hi Maxiogee:

Aren't you being too hard on the doctor? What if s/he only did it once and then again for a cause that s/he found to be valid? I am not sure that this would smear her/his reputation, unless we are talking here about perfectionism. I am not trying to justify any lie whatever, but I believe that certain lies are not out of place, I mean they have their own season so to say, in that they represent a premise or a preparation to a better result, sometimes even to truth. 

Sometimes truth itself is too slow to yield a good fruit. Can we always afford to wait?

P.S. Even Nature "lies": just think of mimicry of animals in the wild.

JC


----------



## maxiogee

Joca said:


> Hi Maxiogee:
> 
> Aren't you being too hard on the doctor? What if s/he only did it once and then again for a cause that s/he found to be valid? I am not sure that this would smear her/his reputation, unless we are talking here about perfectionism.



Would the employer who found out that the doctor signed a certificate fraudulently be aware that it was just the once? I doubt that they would.


----------



## swift_precision

. said:


> Why would it feel right for you to break the law and place yourself at risk of being killed by an armed drug dealer rather than dropping a dime to the police?
> This is a hypothetically self contradictory premise.
> Why would it feel right to lie about what you have done if you felt that what you had done is right?
> This example requires an acceptance that breaking and entering, stealing and lying are all able to be rationalised as 'feeling right'.
> I have never met such a person and I do not think such convoluted rationalisations possible.
> 
> I took the original 'feel right' to mean 'rational'. I do not undersatnd how to split 'feel right' and 'rational'.
> 
> .,,


 
Perhaps the police in certain communities are not to be trusted? Perhaps the neighborhood is tired of gangs, drugs, and violence plaguing their neighborhoods?  Maybe a father has lost his son to drug/gang violence and believes it would "feel right" to exact some sort of justice not necessarily on those responsible but for the greater good of the community?  Yes it may feel right to try and exact personal justice or perhaps vengance but would it be the rational thing to do? no.   

Why would it feel right to lie about what one had done if he felt it was right?  Perhaps to protect himself or his family?

I do not equate something that "feels right" with always being rational.  Perhaps in some cases the two may coincide but not always.


----------



## Joca

maxiogee said:


> Would the employer who found out that the doctor signed a certificate fraudulently be aware that it was just the once? I doubt that they would.


 
Indeed, the doctor knew he was running a certain risk when he signed the certificate. He must have measured the consequences beforehand and envisaged what to do in case. But, in my opinion, if he had, then, no doubt of the good he was doing, if he could afford to have a clear conscience, he would even dare to put his serviceability above his punctual reputation.


----------



## alexacohen

swift_precision said:


> I do not equate something that "feels right" with always being rational. Perhaps in some cases the two may coincide but not always.


But we do equate them. That was all the trouble, Swift Precision. Just a definition.
Alexa


----------



## swift_precision

alexacohen said:


> But we do equate them. That was all the trouble, Swift Precision. Just a definition.
> Alexa


 

Sí alexa ya lo sé.  Gracias por la explicación.


----------



## alexacohen

swift_precision said:


> Sí alexa ya lo sé. Gracias por la explicación.


I think this would fit in the thread about "misunderstandings"  
Sorry for having barked at you. I found your post about POWs terribly interesting. I hadn't thought of that!
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

Assuming that there is some historical truth in the stories, and that they are not allegorical, what would anyone say about the value the Philistine society placed on Goliath - or the value the Hebrews placed on Moses in his dealings with the Pharaoh, when he 'called down' plague after plague to get his own way? 

Surely these were prime examples of bullies being valued by society, as long as the bullying was directed externally from the society's point of view.

More up to date, when the British invited an Irish delegation to peace talks in 1921, they offered a one-sided agreement and gave the Irish delegates two options - either they sign it, or there would be what Winston Churchill termed "immediate and terrible war" - surely a prime bully tactic?
One could go on, there are many examples which show that "society", at times, has valued the bully.


----------



## Joca

maxiogee said:


> Assuming that there is some historical truth in the stories, and that they are not allegorical, what would anyone say about the value the Philistine society placed on Goliath - or the value the Hebrews placed on Moses in his dealings with the Pharaoh, when he 'called down' plague after plague to get his own way?
> 
> Surely these were prime examples of bullies being valued by society, as long as the bullying was directed externally from the society's point of view.
> 
> More up to date, when the British invited an Irish delegation to peace talks in 1921, they offered a one-sided agreement and gave the Irish delegates two options - either they sign it, or there would be what Winston Churchill termed "immediate and terrible war" - surely a prime bully tactic?
> One could go on, there are many examples which show that "society", at times, has valued the bully.


 
I see what you mean and I find yours to be astute observations. But I am not sure that the cases in point fit the usual definition of a bully. We tend to think of a bully as intramural, that is, as belonging to the same medium or environment as the object of his/her bullying, though possibly of a different class, condition, race... Also, the bully's doings are persistent or everlasting rather than occasional or eventual. In other words, the classical bully behaves and acts rather mechanically; he mostly is not aware of what he is doing and doesn't have a clear political objective. He focusses his attention not always on getting something concrete from the other part, but mostly on simply humiliating or destroying the other part. 

I think of Moses and Churchill rather as statesmen with their own tactics (bullying it may seem) and as for Goliath... well, I think he was maybe a buffoon and possibly an actual burden to his own people.


----------



## maxiogee

Joca said:


> I see what you mean and I find yours to be astute observations. But I am not sure that the cases in point fit the usual definition of a bully. We tend to think of a bully as intramural, that is, as belonging to the same medium or environment as the object of his/her bullying, though possibly of a different class, condition, race... Also, the bully's doings are persistent or everlasting rather than occasional or eventual. In other words, the classical bully behaves and acts rather mechanically; he mostly is not aware of what he is doing and doesn't have a clear political objective. He focusses his attention not always on getting something concrete from the other part, but mostly on simply humiliating or destroying the other part. [/quote
> 
> Do you think that the rest of the Philistine soldier's found his presence in the barracks a pleasant experience? Such a character acts as s/he acts whenever the opportunity arises. We know of him purely because he was once of some service to the state. But I'd imagine he was a nightmare for his fellows and for his superiors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think of Moses and Churchill rather as statesmen with their own tactics (bullying it may seem) and as for Goliath... well, I think he was maybe a buffoon and possibly an actual burden to his own people.
> 
> 
> 
> By accounts of those who dealt with him Churchill was a classic example of a bully —> Isaiah Berlin: "But I didn’t like him, he was a bully."
> And as for Moses, how often did his people reject him and his teachings?
Click to expand...


----------



## Joca

maxiogee said:


> ... By accounts of those who dealt with him Churchill was a classic example of a bully —> Isaiah Berlin: "But I didn’t like him, he was a bully."
> And as for Moses, how often did his people reject him and his teachings?


 

Unfortunately, I know very little about Churchill, but I admit that I mostly hear "positive and heroic" things about him. 

As for Moses, I don't want to place any offense here, but I am afraid he was mostly perceived by his people rather as too righteous a leader, maybe a kind of guru in the rather pejorative sense the term has acquired recently. I think there's a Hindi word for that, but I can't bring it back right now.

EDIT: I think the word is pundit or pandit. Could Moses have been a pundit?


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> I would argue that your doctor shouldn't have been put in the position of having to lie. Your employer (or the state) should have automatically made whatever arangements were necessary for you to be at your child's bedside.
> That he lied was necessitated by the circumstances - the circumstances should have been different.
> There are doctors here in Ireland who are known to sign a sick certificate for almost anyone who asks for one. They are doing what your doctor did, but for less, or even no, reason - so, between them with 0% justification and your doctor with 100% justification there is a continuum - if we go backwards from your doctor's position, at what point along the line does it become wrong to sign the certificate?


 

I have to agree with this whole heartedly.  Doctors have a code of ethics--if not anything else-- that they have to go by.  No matter what he should not have written that letter.  If he wanted to write a note of some sort verifying that your child was indeed in the hospital (and it's possibly abetter if you were at his side) that is different.  I can't blame an employer to want verification and I can't see an employer denying you sick time so that you can be with your toddler.


----------



## alexacohen

My friend Poetic Device:
A lie is never justified. A lie is a lie. Talking about "justifying lies" is just a way to protect ourselves from the fact that we lie. I don't want to include ayone in the cathegory of "liars", so what I say applies only to myself.
If I sometimes choose to tell a lie instead of the truth, because the truth would be too hurtful, doesn't make it less a lie. It is my decision only, and I do not feel the need to justify it. The fact is: I tell lies, and therefore I am a liar.


----------



## Joca

alexacohen said:


> My friend Poetic Device:
> ... The fact is: I tell lies, and therefore I am a liar.


 
You can tell lies now and then (and call me a cynic, but I am afraid hardly anyone can cast the first stone and say that they never do so). However, I am not sure that this makes you into a liar. I want to find a word to describe this particular trait, but I can't. Please observe that you are being (paradoxically?) truthful with the above-mentioned remark. This would be enough for me to dismiss the word "liar", because in my mind, a liar is someone who only tells lies or tells them most of the time. I am confused...


----------



## alexacohen

Hello Joca:
I can't find other meaning for a lie than deviation of the truth. 
But I find them necessary, sometimes. Because there are instances where telling the truth would be more cruel than telling a lie. I will never say to a sick friend "sorry, mate, you're paralyzed", even when this is the truth. So I will choose to lie. 
I've been missing talking to you. 
Alexa


----------



## Musical Chairs

In Japan, they have a saying that goes something like "a liar is the beginning of a thief" but I don't think that's true all the time.

One of my friends is honest about pretty much everything but it doesn't bother me (and sometimes I like it) even when they're not good things because I know she has good intentions and sometimes I need to hear things that normal people wouldn't tell me ("that means he doesn't like you," "that's ugly," etc). Most of the time, I can tell if the person is telling the truth because they're mean or they're telling the truth because they mean well or they're just like that (by their tone, facial expression, how they said it, timing, how they are normally, etc).


----------



## alexacohen

Musical Chairs:
When I had my last baby, there was by my side another woman having her baby too.
The doctor came to check how we were getting on. We were both monitorized. He checked the other woman. 
Then he said: "Your phoetus id dead, I'll give you something to quicken your labour".
It was the truth. And it was also the most cruel, most inconsiderate, most sadistic thing to say to that woman.
She spent four hours of unbearable pain knowing that all she was suffering would be in vain. She was giving birth to a dead baby.
There are truths that are better left unsaid.


----------



## Musical Chairs

alexacohen said:


> Musical Chairs:
> When I had my last baby, there was by my side another woman having her baby too.
> The doctor came to check how we were getting on. We were both monitorized. He checked the other woman.
> Then he said: "Your phoetus id dead, I'll give you something to quicken your labour".
> It was the truth. And it was also the most cruel, most inconsiderate, most sadistic thing to say to that woman.
> She spent four hours of unbearable pain knowing that all she was suffering would be in vain. She was giving birth to a dead baby.
> There are truths that are better left unsaid.



I agree that was very cruel. It wouldn't have helped her (not good intentions) to know that her baby was dead. Do you know if the doctor was required to tell her this (by law)? Exactly how did he say this? Were those his exact words?


----------



## alexacohen

Doctors are not required by law to tell the truth to their patients. 
The original words were in Spanish, but as I don't know if you can understand Spanish, and I don't know the word for the medicine in English, I translated them. These are the original:
"Tu feto está muerto, te daré oxitocina para acelerar el parto".
Maybe someone can translate them for you better than I did.
I will remember them for the rest of my life, as I will remember the terrible cries of the woman. "He's not a phoetus, he's my baby, he's got a name, he's called David, David, David, David".


----------



## Musical Chairs

That's horrible.

In the US, there is a phrase that goes "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I wouldn't have considered it lying if he'd said nothing about the baby being dead. I don't think that what he didn't say would have been considered a lie. And if what you translated is exactly what he said, "fetus," "dead," and "quicken your labor" were all the worst ways to let her know about her baby (even if he had to say it, he definitely didn't have to say it like that).


----------



## ireney

I am not quite sure if that's a good example for  "lies can be better than the truth sometimes" . As Musical Chairs noted, if this is how he chose to disclose the information, he is a very callous person and, even if there isn't any way to give such an information without causing devastating pain, he could have worded his explanation better.

I can't see why it would be better for that pregnant woman to be told nothing was amiss or just be told nothing whatsoever (which in both cases would lead her to assume that everything's fine), go through labour with the very logical expectation of seeing her live babe just to find out he was dead.


----------



## alexacohen

Just to clarify: 
Each and every one of us were in what is called here "High Risk Pregnancy and Intensive Care". Each and every one of us were aware there was something very wrong with us and/or our babies.
We all expected the worst.
But none of us wanted to know it beforehand. I know, I was there for eight months.


----------



## Musical Chairs

I hope he didn't do this to everyone (though he probably did...).


----------



## Joca

Yes, I think the doctor was very tactless. The blunt way he told the truth was devastating. It is not enough to tell the truth, it is also important how you tell it. Truth is like a delicate flower. It withers if not handled with care. A callous way to tell the truth denotes arrogance. Sometimes a lie (perhaps not in this particular case?) can be employed as a preparation for the truth: at times people simply are not in the position to hear the truth, but they are expecting to hear something. This ersatz truth, however, is to be temporary, and truth must be revealed as soon as appropriate. Yes, I should think that there is a therapeutic and provisional use to lies.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

If I had been delivering a stillborn child, I would still have wanted to know.

It isn't _whether _you tell the truth in many cases - it's _how _you tell the truth.  I was told that in cases like this, the person will always remember your exact words, so that you must choose them carefully.


----------



## Joca

Just yesterday a taxi driver was telling me how he was once robbed of his income of a whole working day. It was early evening and he took in a passenger who looked absolutely normal. They even chatted in a friendly way during the ride, but right at the end the man showed his gun and said to the taxi driver: "You don't need your money. I will take it with me." And that was what he did and escaped into the dark.

This passenger was not only a robber, he was also a liar (he pretended to be someone else) and a bully (he had a gun). While a liar doesn't often go much beyond their lies and a bully doesn't often go much beyond their bullying, a thief or a robber in order to achieve his objective often has to be a liar and a bully at the same time.

So maybe I am changing my mind on this topic. I think the thief can usually be the worst. I think I would vote for him now.


PS. If the robber had said "I need your money and will take it with me," he might have won some of my sympathy. But having decided that the poor taxi driver didn't need his money was not only a lie, but also an outrage.


----------



## alexacohen

The worst person, maybe, has a combination of the three traits?
Alexa


----------



## panjabigator

Deception is really horrible.  Looking at your example Joca, I feel like lying and stealing are almost the same thing.  That poor taxi drivers trust is ruined, stolen from even.  Just atrocious, really.


----------



## panjabigator

alexacohen said:


> The worst person, maybe, has a combination of the three traits?
> Alexa




Without a doubt.  

I have a question about this thread.  



> Which is the least valuable cultural trait?



Do you mean from culture to culture or in general?  Lying, bullying, or stealing are not apart of a culture I'm aware of (or at least endorsed).


----------



## alexacohen

panjabigator said:


> Without a doubt.
> I have a question about this thread.
> Do you mean from culture to culture or in general? Lying, bullying, or stealing are not apart of a culture I'm aware of (or at least endorsed).


Dear Panjabigator, what the question asks is:
According to your cultural background, which one of these traits would be the most undesirable to find in a person?
My friend Robert has a very special way of saying things.
Alexa


----------



## Lusitania

1) thief
2) Liar
3) Bullying

Bulliyng is quite common at the workplace and people find it natural, there is no social consciense on how damaging it might be.


----------

