“You are sooooo funny, sitetest. Here you argue to delacoert that a person has to be acting in ‘bad faith’ to be guilty of passing on lies. But suddenly when it comes to failing miserably in evaluating statements made to you, it now doesn't matter to you whether somebody was acting in ‘bad faith’ or not? If you think something was objectively false that was said about you, you ask, ‘Was that a lie? Are you a liar...?’”
Ahh... I hate to break it to you, Colofornian... If you haven't already figured it out...
... I was trying to use delacoert’s absurd definition and way of thinking about lying to demonstrate that applied to him and his words, it would lead to an unsupportable conclusion.
However, it appears that delacoert is nothing if not consistent, and I think he actually accepts the judgment of his own logic on his own words. I strongly disagree with what I think is his conclusion - I do NOT believe that delacoert lied or is a liar because he misread what I said and posted something false about me as a result - but I gotta give him lots of points for consistency and a certain personal integrity. Even if it seems kinda whacky to me.
As to my responses related to the first “lie” cited by the author of this article - asked and answered under the heading of “Differences between Affirmations of Propositional Beliefs and Expressions about One’s Own Interior Thoughts.”
sitetest
I object to your characterization of my definition of Mormon missionary communication of Mormon doctrines as being lies as absurd. You merely employ rhetoric in a provocative manner, and you arrogantly maintain Catholicism as the only true Christianity.
Pah.