That’s also just what “lying” means. If you make a claim with the intention of deceiving someone that claim is a lie. It’s not like English is a formal language where you can say “ah but my statement technically passed the ‘Truth compiler’ so it’s not technically a lie.”
The recent season 1 of the Wheel of Time television show reminded me of how the Aes Sedai are magically bound "To speak no word that is not true".
Of course, they're all master manipulators, ironically able to lie better than the common people because they can leverage that apparent veneer of truthfulness to deceive even more completely.
It's funny how this is actually how laws and official paperwork works. It is very important to look at every single word. And I don't think you are correct in saying that it is lying. It actually objectively isn't. And whether you'd argue it is or isn't very likely depends on which side of it you are on.
Of course when reading over it in the regular fast way of reading through the comments, one might think there is a contradiction, because you said there would be one and so we read it that way. But there really isn't. It's an evasive manoeuvre. Of course they know what you're asking and they specifically do not want to lie and so they choose words you are going to very likely parse in a particular way.
If you think about it, is the "there's a contradiction in the following sentence" way of stating this any different/worse/better than the original? I would argue it isn't. Same level just on opposite sides of the argument.
Conversations are not legal contracts; if you knowingly and selectively choose your words to give the wrong impression (and abusers are skilled at doing) you are lying.
Conversations can be legal contracts. A verbal contract is a contract. It might be hard to prove that the contract exists, but that doesn't mean that there was no agreement.
FWIW, there are actually two definitions of lie listed in most dictionaries. The first is to present false information with the intent to deceive, but the second is just to deceive. I think perhaps people arguing about whether or not my example is strictly "a lie" are not working with the same definition. I intentionally avoided the word "lie" because of this confusion.
I've had people argue that answering a question with an intentionally misleading non-sequitur is not lying. e.g. "Did you reaearch your topic?" "I went to the library"; they didn't say when they went to the library nor that they did any research at the library. Or more recently: "Have you been vaccinated?" "Yeah, I've been immunized".
To me such non-answers are clearly a lie because it's not really any different than saying "Yes" and then claiming you were talking about the popular rock band from the 70s for no particular reason. I can see how some people would disagree and I'm not interested in arguing semantics, so I try to avoid the word "lie" in general when "deception" seems less contentious.
Reminds me of the NSA dude claiming under oath 'not knowingly'. Apparently he had plausible deniability.
Spies seem masters in this, applying it for the good (of whomever they serve).
Bill Clinton's famous 'never had sex with that woman, miss Lewinsky' also comes to mind.
I think it could also be trained (including with humor, even when obviously a lie), as its basically a subset of social engineering or confidence game. When people succesfully lie, they are telling a truth from a certain PoV (one which benefits them). And, it can be a useful trait, too, depending on your where you stand (also a PoV).
Side note: the word lie is indeed not preferred, a better one is deceptive or manipative.
That being said, BPD was hyped in 90s where a lot of women got the diagnosis, while they were underrepresented in autism diagnoses.
On the contrary, you can’t deliberately deceive someone in the wording of a contract, and you can’t even induce someone to enter a contract by deliberately deceiving them.
This will always be a question of interpretation. There are a lot of situations (contract or otherwise) where you can say something that might imply something else but you chose your words wisely and 'mean them'. Marketing is full of this for example as well. And it extends to contracts.
"Up to 100MBit" in the marketing material as well as the contract. When you complain that you only get 0.5MBit it's basically "buyer beware" because you bought "up to" not "always exactly" 100MBit of connectivity on a shared medium (cable). As long as it's true that the medium actually supports 100MBit there's nothing wrong with this except for it being very deceptive. This kind of thing is all over the place and a lot of people fall for it all the time. And then complain loudly but mostly toothlessly. The internet itself I guess has changed some of this as it's easier for companies to get bad enough publicity out of such things than back in the day but it's doesn't change the underlying facts and mechanics.
