Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, some humans perceive a lie as the truth, or vice versa, even when they are faced with the existing facts contrary to their belief. I've always thought that a part of this problem is a result of most humans seeming to think they have to speak four times as much as they observe even though they were given two ears and two eyes but only mouth.
I believe the old expression used to be, "Putting the mouth in gear before engaging the brain."
I get that NOBODY likes being told when they are at fault, or have misbehaved, been caught in a lie, etc., etc., etc. We often want to shoot the messenger, so to speak.
BUT...in those circumstances, shouldn't we at LEAST CONSIDER that MAYBE the person pointing out our flaw might have a point? I mean...at least acknowledge the possibility? Granted, after examination we might come to the conclusion that the other person is wrong, or we might decide we don't care what anyone else thinks, "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"
But wouldn't a mature person at least pause and think "Hmmm...so and so takes issue with my behavior, drinking, lying, etc...I care about that person. Maybe they have a point."?
I will never, ever argue with this famous phrase: Man is ice to truth, fire to falsehoods/lies. Every Politician that goes out on their first day of their campaign never forgets that, all through the campaign. Telling the truth is a sure fire way of losing an election.
You can get killed, injured telling the truth!
Husband: Guess what I've been up to the last 6 months, I've been having an affair with much younger woman! You Did tell me to always tell you the truth, right?
Wife: Punch! Slap! Kick! Bang!
It's rare than anyone can tell me a lie and I don't catch it, but if, down the road, someone lied to me, I didn't catch it, that person deserves a steak dinner on me. You can learn something from these people!
Now chew on this one: The unconscious liar is the biggest liar of all!
Try and solve that puzzle!
And how do you find out what's hiding in someone's unconscious mind? Ask a simple question: What is it that you dislike/hate in others? You know the saying: Point a finger at someone and you're pointing 3 fingers at yourself!
I get that NOBODY likes being told when they are at fault, or have misbehaved, been caught in a lie, etc., etc., etc. We often want to shoot the messenger, so to speak.
BUT...in those circumstances, shouldn't we at LEAST CONSIDER that MAYBE the person pointing out our flaw might have a point? I mean...at least acknowledge the possibility? Granted, after examination we might come to the conclusion that the other person is wrong, or we might decide we don't care what anyone else thinks, "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"
But wouldn't a mature person at least pause and think "Hmmm...so and so takes issue with my behavior, drinking, lying, etc...I care about that person. Maybe they have a point."?
The problem with this is - interpretation. Just as someone could be in denial about hearing the truth, one may also be in denial about ‘whose fault it is’. There are two sides to every story.
And what is the motivation to ‘pointing out flaws’? Is it to be self-righteous or to try to be ‘right’ and/or harass someone? Or is it done in terms of being a sincere friend? There’s a big difference between helping a friend with a very real anger or alcohol issue, for example, vs. simply being resentful and wanting to lash out under the guise of ‘honesty’ (which I often see).
We don’t need someone to be the truth police (as another poster said) - but we sometimes need a sincere friend. There’s a difference.
The truth does not hurt. Not wanting to look at the truth hurts every time.
So is it our responsibility to tell someone what we think is the truth for them when they did not ask us to tell them that? If they're a child and they're putting themselves in danger, yes. Otherwise no responsibility or duty. Of course we're free to tell them anyway. The consequences -- either process them or ignore them.
Disagree. The “truth” as one person sees it, may, in fact, not actually be the truth. It is all subjective.
Now, though I don't see the point in always being "honest," because that's not always our job - but I do believe there is such a thing as actual TRUTH.
For instance, if I deposit a check in my checking account, for $57.33 - that's the amount I deposited. That's it. That's all, no more and no less.
If I say "My natural hair has gray in it," well, it just does. No amount of believing otherwise will change that. I can dye it, but it is still naturally partly gray.
If I say, "I have ten fingers and ten toes," well, I just DO. That is the truth.
If I say, "My husband has a red truck," OK - that might be open to interpretation by someone like my mother who had a stroke to her optic nerve and reds and blues looked similar to her afterward. But here's the deal - she might SEE the truck as blue, but it is not blue. It is red. Now, she can think it's blue all she wants, but that doesn't change the reality that the truck is red.
That being said, just because something is "true" doesn't mean we have a moral obligation to pronounce it. For instance, with my mom seeing blues and reds differently - I didn't argue with her, or point out "You think it's blue but it's really red," because what would be the point?
My husband is color blind. Reds and greens look similar to him, so guess what - he can't be a pilot. You know why? Because red lights are red lights and green lights are green lights. (He can tell with traffic lights because he has learned where the lights are, but if I think about it, that's pretty scary too - LOL. Oh well, he has a great driving record.)
Disagree. The “truth” as one person sees it, may, in fact, not actually be the truth. It is all subjective.
Dunno, what I understand as truth are only the objective facts. All the alternative "truths" are subjective views of the truth.
Isn't everything being subjective an objective truth?
(not to mention that you are contradicting your own statement.
The "truth" as one person sees it, may, in fact, not be the truth.
You just agreed to the fact that a subjective view of the truth may not be the truth. As in there is an objective truth that the person can't see)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
