All right, back to your assertion. You are correct. He did say that, and it is not the truth. Period. Can't get around it.
Well, at least someone has the balls to admit the obvious. Thanks for that.
He also said that, and it's not the truth. Just looking at the Internet really quick one finds that Horus raised is dad from the dead. His papa is named Osirus. So that's that.
Again, thanks for not seeking out mind-numbing apologetic maneuvers for Maher. Maher was wrong, period. Marg follows GoodK and says he didn't really mean what he said, but as I understand it, the Horus/Jesus connection is given attention in his upcoming film. This wasn't a slip of the tongue. He knew what he was saying and he did so to silent the religious majority who hold Christ dear to them. He ended up looking like a rabid moron, which is quite fitting.
Let's say there is this guy named Kevin, not you of course, who went to a crappy school and didn't even pay attention anyway. He tells me that Washington State is south of Nevada. He doesn't intend to trick me; he just really believes this is right. Is he morally culpable for being ignorant of the matter?
I wouldn't call him a liar, no. But if he were to build a career somehow by arrogantly pontificating about a national conspiracy to fool billions of humans into thinking Washington is really north of Nevada, then that changes everything for me.
Your accusation that Bill Maher is a "liar" impugns his character. Now, he may be an awful person, but if the act you are accusing him for is not morally wrong, but only an error, then it seems to me that you are the one who is morally culpable for dishonesty.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Now let's use your own rationale here for a second. According to your own standard, it wouldn't be dishonest of me to call him a liar unless I
knew for a fact he wasn't. Otherwise I could just be saying something wrong because I really believed it was true, not necessarily lying.
So which is it?
That is, unless, you are too ignorant to know the difference between lying and getting your facts wrong. I won't presume to judge you on that until I know. ;-)
I know that the two are not always mutually exclusive, even if you don't.
According to Merriam-Webster online, the first definition of "lie" is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
And as most people realize, words frequently have many definitions. You provided only one as if it is the only one that matters. How convenient for you. I guess you didn't happen to run across that pesky definition #2 in the verb form:
"to express what is false; convey a false impression."
Ironically enough, not only is Maher lying by this definition, so are you. Why? Because in all likelihood, you saw this definition but chose to ignore it for polemical purposes. The purpose of "convenying a false impression" that the verb lie cannot simply mean what I said it means. It most certainly does.
But
I don't call
you a liar because this is a relative term and I don't follow your strict usage of it. It isn't something you can not disprove unless you prove the false statement is in fact true. Without a false statement there can be no lie. If you can't prove it, then it is up to anyone's own discretion to use it as he will in accordance with the definitions allowed. For me, the arrogance and perceived intent is a strong factor.
I mean think about it Trevor, if you want to take it to its logical end, then nobody can justifiably be called a liar because nobody can know for certain the knowledge and intent of the accused. It is relative and relies on perception and judgment calls.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein