Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

A lie of omission is still a lie.


sort by: page size:

Lying by omission is still lying.

Lying by omission is still lying.

Are lies of omission not still lies?

A lie by omission.

Some of the biggest lies are by omission.

Lies of omission are lies just as much as lies of commission because they communicate something that is incorrect.

Lie by omission

A lie is a false statement, hence you cannot "lie by omission". This is an absurd assertion.

When you intentionally say something misleading by omission but true, that's a lie of omission.

There are lies of commission, but also lies of omission.

That is called lying through omission.

There are lies of commission and lies of omission.

I don't agree. I think lies by omission are lies.

Lying by omission is not the same thing as not mentioning irrelevancies.

Lies and omissions are always more dangerous than the truth.

A lie by omission can be used to convince the public of things that aren't true just the same as more direct methods of spreading false information.

Lies of omission are still lies.

To use an extreme example, if a reporting organization writes a story about one nation launching missile strikes against another, and leaves out that they were retaliatory strikes from a previous attack, that dramatically changes the perception of those events. If this sort of thing is continually done to benefit one entity, it is reasonable to question the honesty of the reporter.

Even if the released documents are all accurate, the previous lies of omission would cause a reasonable person to question whether or not the released documents provide adequate context.


Similarly, I like to say something along the lines of "lies by omission are still lies".

Omitting parts of the truth is not lying.
next

Legal | privacy