|
Post by Frank on Jan 30, 2008 11:50:47 GMT -5
From Wikipedia:
Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Such language is often associated with governmental, military, political, religious, secular, interest group and corporate institutions and its deliberate use by these is what distinguishes it from other euphemisms. Doublespeak may be in the form of bald euphemisms ("downsizing" for "firing of many employees", "enhanced interrogation techniques" for torture, or extraordinary rendition for the process of kidnapping people from countries where torture is illegal to countries where it isn't) or deliberately ambiguous phrases ("wet work" for "assassination", "take out" for "destroy", "red tape" for "bureaucracy").
A euphemism is the substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener; or in the case of doublespeak, to make it less troublesome for the speaker. It also may be a substitution of a description of something or someone rather than the name, to avoid revealing secret, holy, or sacred names to the uninitiated, or to obscure the identity of the subject of a conversation from potential eavesdroppers. Some euphemisms are intended to be funny.
What do you think?
Are doublespeak and euphemisms forms of lies?
As Christians, we are to be honest. Is it honest to employ doublespeak and euphemisms to say what we should without it being interpreted as intended?
My grandfather used to say "If you can't say anything nice don't say it at all." "Nice", in this context of course, meant "not offensive". "If you can't say anything free of offense, don't say anything at all."
Did Jesus live by this code?
Was Jesus careful to not say anything that someone would consider offensive?
Did Jesus speak plainly? Or did he employ deceptive mechanisms to conceal the true intent of his speech?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 30, 2008 12:23:29 GMT -5
From Before You Ask...Think on These Things - Chapter 2 home.earthlink.net/%7Etruth555/BeforeAsk2.htmlEuphemisms - Doublespeak It's ALL in the Name! "And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth;" Jer 9:3 In polite society, some words are unmentionable. Some subjects are just plain offensive or unpleasant to talk or think about: sex, death, torture, etc. So people often use words they carefully choose to avoid directly mentioning something sensitive or delicate. When we substitute a positive, pleasing or neutral association for one that is negative, disagreeable or offensive, that word is called a Euphemism. Euphemisms cause bad to seem good, negative to appear positive, and unpleasant to look attractive, or at least tolerable. Because they repackage the negative in an acceptable format, Euphemisms are often used as a kindness, and their use is sometimes considered good manners. For instance, the term "passed away" is kinder than the word "dead," when talking to a recent widow. Referring to "a piece of misinformation," rather than "a bald-faced lie" may prevent hostility from occurring. However, because the nature of a Euphemism is to disguise the negative, they can also be misused to mislead, distort and deceive. Euphemisms can be used to pull wool over people's eyes -- to cloud or limit thought; to prevent opposition or conflict; to mislead, distort, deceive or inflate. Just as a rose by any other name is still a rose, so a spade by any other name is still a spade. Changing the name does not change the fact. A lie can never become the truth -- no matter how the lie is dressed or packaged -- even if it's a 100-year old lie! Watch out for Word Benders! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples of Euphemisms Harsh Reality - Euphemism Substitute: fat, overweight - husky, full figure skinny - slim, slender false teeth - dentures sweat - perspiration kickbacks - rebates junkyard - auto recycler employee - associate in the red - negative cash flow housewife - domestic engineer stench - aroma in the john - powdering her nose rebel/guerrilla - freedom fighter tax hike - revenue enhancement potholes - pavement deficiencies dump - recycling facility sewer system - water waste management jail - correctional facility reform school - Youth Development Center alcohol/drug addiction - chemical dependency; substance abuse 2x2 Harsh Reality - Euphemism Substitutes: Disagrees with beliefs - lost his vision Difference of opinion - wrong spirit Doesn't buy everything - lack of faith, loves the world Going to hell - lost eternity Worker's Rules - standards of the kingdom Rape - taking advantage of ; groping a feel to rape - taking liberties empty talk - good visit inconvenience - privilege doing it workers' way - for kingdom/gospel's sake; worker taboos - things that aren't edifying life dictated by workers - self-denial, suffering, persecution sucker - convert, honest heart light - their method; walk in "the light" as Jesus walked advertising with outer appearance/actions (EX: peculiar people, bearing marks of Christ) conformity - unity poor - workers selling all and giving to the poor their method - the truth as it is in Jesus their method - God's plan workers' rules - standards of the kingdom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More Examples of Euphemisms "Their (2x2) polity is episcopal." (means their organization is governed by bishops.) From: Canadian Encyclopedia, 1988 Article on Assemblies of Christians, pg 424 The following euphemisms are from the February, 1995 Reader's Digest, Page 106, written by Steve Salerno in Los Angeles Times Magazine: "Oh, Wheelie?" "Southern California is home to many publications devoted to helping people sell their used cars. The listings have a vocabulary all their own; understanding it is essential to avoid getting lemonized. What it says - What it means: Must sell - Before it blows up. Runs fine - I was going to say "runs excellent," but I had a last-minute conscience attack. Needs some body work - Was blindsided by a Winnebago. Well-maintained - I changed the oil occasionally. Looks like new - Just don't try to drive it anywhere. All original - I never had anything fixed, adjusted or replaced. Loaded with options - Each one more troublesome than the next. Never smoked in - Unfortunately, that's the best thing I can say about it. Project car - Doesn't run. Lots of potential - Doesn't run. Needs minor repair - Doesn't run."
|
|
wanttobeaspindoctor
Guest
|
Post by wanttobeaspindoctor on Jan 30, 2008 13:56:00 GMT -5
ali: "Yes, Clearday is very straightforward and IMO honest. I like him."clearday: "Ali? Bienvenue en arrière ! You're too kind!"wanttobewithgod: "clearday: I hope you're not insinuating that that's going to make you a trendsetter....SOME (please read, SOME) here are very good at that already...too late! M."Gem: "HMMMM Michelle who do you consider a trendsetter on the board? Gem"wanttobewithgod: "Heheheeh...not at trendsetting, Gem...I meant some are very good at bashing Exs and some at bashing F&W on this board already....so Clearday couldn't be a trendsetter in that regard...so I hope he wasn't pinning his hopes on that! M."This conversation is good example of TMB doublespeek wanttobewithgod said one thing then tried to take it back pay close attention - devil in the details
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jan 30, 2008 14:12:58 GMT -5
wanttobeabove: You obviously have no idea what you're on about, so never mind. It's not my problem if you can't read AND interpret both. M> Don't ask me why I respond to this garbage....lol. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Aint it the truth on Jan 30, 2008 16:23:58 GMT -5
Cherie, thats alot of research. I thinks its pretty cool and enlightening. thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jan 30, 2008 16:29:18 GMT -5
Frank, what an interesting topic.
I strive to be both completely diplomatic and completely honest. Mercy plus truth. (To be clear, by "truth" I mean truth, the God kind, not Truth the religion.) With no diplomacy, workplaces and other areas could sink into small wars and power struggles. With no honesty, issues would not be addressed or things would not be said that needed to be spoken. Sometimes I totally mess this up--and I know I've done this in recent weeks on both some on and off-board issues--but that's my goal anyway.
A teacher I once had would fly off into rages and begin to scream at the class about how horrid and misbehaved they were. It was all truth; the classroom was truly out of control. But... it didn't help the kids change because there was no diplomacy, tact or kindness. It just created more issues. Maybe it satisfied something inside the teacher to do that. I don't know. Mostly I think it just made him look bad and proved he didn't have much authority. They removed him from the school anyway.
I am very aware that often I make mistakes and am quite imperfect so, just for me, I strive to treat others how I would like to be treated--with both kindness and honesty--never to mislead them but because that combination is what helps me become better. I would dislike it if people around me did not point out places where I could improve, but I wouldn't want to be beat over the head either--because all of us have both good and bad qualities. We are all imperfect humans, have all made mistakes, and must rely on the mercy of God. That's just what works for me as a person. I've been in working environments and hobby groups where things went too far one way or too far the other. It can get kinda chaotic, I think. Jesus seemed to have the right combination of this--where he showed mercy, love and kindness but was also truthful in what he said and did.
Just some thoughts I had.
peace, freespirit
|
|
|
Post by OIC on Jan 30, 2008 16:57:18 GMT -5
"that" inotherwords "straightforward and IMO honest" is the same as "very good at bashing Exs" and "bashing F&W on this board" interesting
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2008 17:21:39 GMT -5
I think the source is most likely the Bible.
It is filled with things that clearly say one thing but, according to many, means something altogether different.
Forgot the list!
Gen. 3:19 return to the ground = die Gen. 4:1 knew = have sex with (also 1 Kings 1:4) Gen. 18:11 the manner/way of women = menstruation (also Gen. 31:35) Gen. 24:2 thigh = male genitals Gen. 34:1 defiled = had sex with Gen. 49:33 was gathered to his people = died Ex. 21:10 duty of marriage = conjugal right (sex) Deut. 21:14 Heb. ‘anah: humble/afflict/humiliate = have sex with (also 2 Sam. 13:22) Lev. 15:2 flesh = penis (also Ez. 16:26; 23:20) Lev. 15:16 seed of copulation = semen Lev 18 repeatedly: "uncover nakedness" = have sex with (in a shameful way) Lev 18:14 "approach" = have sex with Lev 18:20 "give lying-down" = have sex with (as this word $:KOBET is only used for sex, maybe it was not a euphemism, but it comes from the root "lie down") Lev 18:22 "lie with" = have sex with Lev 18:23 "stand in front of" = have sex with (of a woman) Num. 5:22 thigh = female genitals 1 Sam. 24:3 cover feet = relieve oneself 2 Sam. 16:21 go in to = have sex with 1 Kings 2:6 go down to the grave = die 1 Kings 18:27 gone aside = relieving himself (an English euphemism!) 2 Kings 2:10 slept with his fathers = died Is. 7:20 feet = genitals Is. 57:8 hand = penis Matt. 1:19 send her away = break his engagement (betrothal) with her Matt. 1.25 know = have sex with (also Luke 1:34) Matt. 21:25 heaven = God (also Luke 15:18) Matt. 26:24 goes = will die Matt. 26:65 the Power = God Mark 9:7 voice = voice of God Mark 14:61 the Blessed (one) = God Luke 1:32 the Most High = God Luke 1:36 in her sixth month = in her sixth month of pregnancy Luke 2:5 EGKUWi = pregnant (what is a literal translation of the Greek?) Luke 13:29 those that will come from eat and west, from north and south = Gentiles Luke 23:46 breathed his last = died Acts 1:25 went to his own place = got what he deserved (i.e. punishment/death; the Greek expression does not mean that Judas went to his own place, that is, his own home) Acts 2:39 those that are far off = the Gentiles Acts 7:60 fell asleep = died Acts 22:22 take this person away from the earth = kill him 1 Cor 7:1 touch = have sex with 1 Cor. 7:5 come together again = resume normal sexual relations 1 Cor 11.30 sleep = death Phil. 1:23 to depart = to die 1 Tim. 5:17 honor = pay Heb. 13:4 marriage bed = sexual relations 2 Pet. 2:17 blackness of darkness = Jude 7 strange flesh = homosexual partners
|
|
|
Post by Paxil Pete on Jan 30, 2008 17:24:03 GMT -5
Frank, what an interesting topic. I strive to be both completely diplomatic and completely honest. Mercy plus truth. (To be clear, by "truth" I mean truth, the God kind, not Truth the religion.) With no diplomacy, workplaces and other areas could sink into small wars and power struggles. With no honesty, issues would not be addressed or things would not be said that needed to be spoken. Sometimes I totally mess this up--and I know I've done this in recent weeks on both some on and off-board issues--but that's my goal anyway. A teacher I once had would fly off into rages and begin to scream at the class about how horrid and misbehaved they were. It was all truth; the classroom was truly out of control. But... it didn't help the kids change because there was no diplomacy, tact or kindness. It just created more issues. Maybe it satisfied something inside the teacher to do that. I don't know. Mostly I think it just made him look bad and proved he didn't have much authority. They removed him from the school anyway. I am very aware that often I make mistakes and am quite imperfect so, just for me, I strive to treat others how I would like to be treated--with both kindness and honesty--never to mislead them but because that combination is what helps me become better. I would dislike it if people around me did not point out places where I could improve, but I wouldn't want to be beat over the head either--because all of us have both good and bad qualities. We are all imperfect humans, have all made mistakes, and must rely on the mercy of God. That's just what works for me as a person. I've been in working environments and hobby groups where things went too far one way or too far the other. It can get kinda chaotic, I think. Jesus seemed to have the right combination of this--where he showed mercy, love and kindness but was also truthful in what he said and did. Just some thoughts I had. peace, freespirit Thanks for your post, freespirit! Yes, Jesus had the ideal balance; one in which real truth and honesty are served from the vessel of love. I think this is something that many strive for. We are, in most cases a product of our upbringings and a product or our environment, and genetics, of course, and with divine intervention and strength, a product of our convictions brought to reality. That said, if you, for example- were raised in a home where honest venting was acceptable and supported and just taken as is; not always causing offense, not constantly picked apart, then most likely, you are the kind of person that just tells it like it is....Now, we no this is not acceptable to some because in reality, the truth often hurts; especially when it is a painful truth we don't want to face; ------- Maybe it's just a dawning reality; you facing shattered broken dreams; maybe it's disappointments in yourself; maybe it's love that is lost; maybe it is time that is gone that cannot be brought back; maybe it is INNOCENCE crumbled to the ground. All these scenarios can cause pain, but reveal truth. Would people rather know the truth up front or have it be broken to them gently or not be bothered and thus possiblly HURT by knowing the truth of a matter? Why do I ask these questions? Well, the truth is, that there IS a lot of double speak used in the world today because people go around afraid of offending others;---afterall, how can one expect to acheive any status in life, if they are constantly offending others by their blatant, blunt, FRANK, honesty? ------- How, indeed. How? Well, maybe the blunt, frank, open, honest, people are not going to win brownie points with earthly rulers and power in politics, but open, honest, blunt, people might be the ones you want for a true friend when you need a wake up call and/or someone to tell you to PULL YOU HEAD OUT, SISTER, that dude is just yankin' your CHAIN !!! FAITHFUL are the wounds of a friend, as it says in the Jewish Proverb. A true friend can tell you you're acting like a jerk; not because they want to be mean, but because they know you can take the truth from them and in the end are more thankful for the HONESTY than if they gave you insincere compliments all the time, which we know are disingenious, and even manipulative, not to mention very honest. A true friend knows that you are not above reproach, YET not beyond the love of God. And I will close with that line from the Toby Keith song: "Hate me if you want to, Love me if you can."
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jan 30, 2008 17:40:48 GMT -5
Ephemisms are part of polite society. You cannot comport yourself well in a social environment or be seen to be well-mannered if you don't use ephemisms for delicate subjects. The ability to use a ephemism, and more importantly, that they should be generally understood, is a mark of breeding, and "good class".
I live in a town where there is a sharp distinction between the classes. There is almost no middle-ground between the professional cadre and the mining and working classes. It is immediately possible to tell where one falls in the social situation by the manner in which they communicate. For example, when a woman in a supermarket says something like, "That's not the price on the tag! You're rippin' me off!" A person who has grasped the conventions of polite society would never speak in that way - they would say, "That seems a little expensive?"
As much as we may look down our noses from an abstract or philosophical point of view in relation to euphemisms or "doublespeak", these things are used by us all. We understand (instinctively) that little dignities and courtesies of speech are the mark of breeding - for, as it has been rightly observed, "Manners maketh the man". For instance, try speaking as Frank does routinely on this forum to your boss; or a customer in your shop, or even a person on the street. Be "ruthlessly honest" and strip out all the "doublespeak" and "euphemisms". The consequences could range from losing your job to a well-deserved fist in the face.
Are doublespeak and euphemisms forms of lies?
When the motive is to obfuscate then they might be called "misleading", but one learns the importance of moving away from a childish classification of speech as either "lies" or "truth". We know things are more complicated that that.
As Christians, we are to be honest. Is it honest to employ doublespeak and euphemisms to say what we should without it being interpreted as intended?
Well I've watched on Youtube the "street screechers" telling Mormons at their Easter pagent that they're going to hell, and that Joseph Smith "likes kids when they're young. He likes them nice and young". I've seen them waving their signs around with flames roasting Mormons alive. I guess that's a form of honesty, but how repugnant! Who is drawn to such things?
As Christians we are taught to speak "the truth in love", which I take to mean that yes, we need to be forthcoming and honest, but we also need to consider our words; and consider that human beings are not dispassionate philosophical vessels, but creatures of God with thoughts and feelings all their own. We also observe that Jesus selected his words carefully. He did not tell the Rich Young Man that he was hellbound. And even when rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus did not stoop to personal abuse, but rather pointed to their conduct that was not in keeping with the Word of God.
Our standard of truthfulness is the code of conduct found in the Bible. And that is the basis upon which we prayerfully and meditatively address others.
My grandfather used to say "If you can't say anything nice don't say it at all." "Nice", in this context of course, meant "not offensive". "If you can't say anything free of offense, don't say anything at all."
Evidently a wise man who had learned a thing or two in his time.
Did Jesus live by this code? Was Jesus careful to not say anything that someone would consider offensive?
I find it amazing that there could be so much moral confusion about how we are to speak! We all KNOW from the heart how we would like to be addressed; with gentleness; with kindness; with love and with manners. We all KNOW the difference between compassionate honesty, and raw personal abuse. Jesus never stooped to personal abuse, and furthermore, as the incarnate Word of God, who saw into people's souls, he had a perogative and a right to say things we simply cannot.
Did Jesus speak plainly? Or did he employ deceptive mechanisms to conceal the true intent of his speech?
Indeed. Jesus spoke in parables for the express reason that the people, "Seeing may not see, and hearing may not hear, lest their hearts should be turned and I should heal them." I was surprised to see this note in my NIV study Bible recently. Even the disciples themselves did not understand the parables, and needed to have them explained privately to them.
I would never call this "deceptive", for Jesus had a mission from God to speak God's words, according to God's methodologies.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2008 17:43:07 GMT -5
stench - aroma in the john - powdering her nose A stench is an aroma. You have one euphemism defining another defecating/urinating - in the john - powdering her nose
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jan 30, 2008 17:45:13 GMT -5
"that" inotherwords "straightforward and IMO honest" is the same as "very good at bashing Exs" and "bashing F&W on this board" interesting '' It would be nice if you just spit out exactly what you mean...because all of the little quotes and insinuations are completely lost on me. I have NO idea what you're on about. If you would explain what you're referring to, perhaps I could explain what I was referring to!? Thanks! M.
|
|
|
Post by GiveShareLove on Jan 30, 2008 18:09:14 GMT -5
I, for one am the type who [finally] would wish to be spared the fake niceties that many extend all in the name of social uprightness and instead be treated with "real" respect, which occasionally means that some of my closests friends and allies; most of whom are professional and rather brainy sorts feel quite comfortable calling me a b_tch, or telling me my hair looks terrible, or that I have a big huge zit on my nose, or that I don't look good with red hair, and consider those a sincere compliments. Now, I know this is not true for many folks, but then, many folks wouldn't understand where warped, dark, humor comes from, either. Alas, we are ALL afflicted in some way, shape or form.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Jan 30, 2008 18:14:22 GMT -5
FAITHFUL are the wounds of a friend, as it says in the Jewish Proverb. A true friend can tell you you're acting like a jerk; not because they want to be mean, but because they know you can take the truth from them and in the end are more thankful for the HONESTY than if they gave you insincere compliments all the time, which we know are disingenious, and even manipulative, not to mention very honest. A true friend knows that you are not above reproach, YET not beyond the love of God. I love this! And... just speaking here for myself, I can tell you I have been many, many times grateful for friends who have cut me deep, but... then are there to sew me back together again. That's how I grow. And.... you gotta love people who (out of kindness and care, not out of rudeness or some sick need to make you feel bad) are willing to tell you that the dress really dose make you look fat and you have green gunk all in your teeth... 'cause that's what keeps me from looking bad in public. I don't think it's about *never*giving an honest opinion that might possibly in some way ever be considered offensive (Nobody really *enjoys* being told they have spinach in their teeth, right? LOL! At least I sure don't.) but--if you know their heart behind it, and they come from a pure place, and you know they aren't purposefully trying to be hurtful or disrespectful--well... then somehow that makes it okay to hear. Of course...that doesn't mean I don't sometimes feel terribly embarrased about not being more perfect and wish I had done things differently... but then...we are all imperfect before God. God doesn't love us because we're perfect... He loves us because we belong to Him. I am very grateful for His mercy and kindness. peace, freespirit
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jan 30, 2008 18:51:22 GMT -5
Interesting questions Frank, thanks. I've wondered if what's called doublespeak and euphemisms is often simply a way of softening a message instead of being outright deception or "lies". It's simply a way of not being brutally frank. What's needed more often is a big dose of self directed brutal, objective, honesty. If there is any person we could justify being brutally frank with, it might be ourselves. We might subjectively assume another is using doublespeak and euphemisms in a deceptive way - and we might be very wrong about it. The safe and honest thing to do is give others the benifit of the doubt. The catch is our carnal natures don't like to do that - we are often suspicious and assume the worst about others. That way we look better don't we. Oh and we come up with all sorts of excuses to justify our assumptions can't we. We would do well to remember an excuse is the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie. (Thoughts from my experience with my own carnal nature, can I assume ( ) it's true for all to some extent?) Maybe Jesus could justify being brutally frank - because he had no sin or faults of any kind. We do - therefore I don't know if we can justify being brutally frank to others in a spiritual sense - maybe we should be bearing the fruits of the spirit instead, they do not include brutal frankness; But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. Here is a thought provoking article that's related, it holds that honesty does not mean one has to be brutally frank with others, it holds the opposite - that one is not being honest and true to one's self if one is being brutally frank with others. It is a long article but well worth reading, notice it is written from a strictly carnal point of view but still makes a very good case against brutal frankness. I think this article goes a long way in answering the questions Frank poses, questions we all have. It is a good article so I hope none will be offended if it quote it. I like how honesty is stressed, the thing about honesty is - if we don't have it how do we get it since honesty is needed to diagnose dishonesty? Anyway here's the article; Honesty versus brutal franknessVirtually every system of ethics—Objectivist or not—will acknowledge in no uncertain terms that honesty is one of the chief human virtues. What is meant by the term “honesty” varies widely, however. A popular misconception of honesty equates the virtue with always “telling it like it is” and not holding back any of one’s thoughts about a person, idea, or situation—no matter what the consequences of those thoughts. This view and its real-world applications are antithetical to genuine honesty.
If we acknowledge that the individual’s life is the standard of all value, then every virtue must be identified in terms of its benefit to the individual’s life. With honesty, then, the best place to start is with Polonius’s advice to Laertes in Hamlet: “Above all, to thine own self be true.” Honesty—viewed from a rational, individualistic context—is identical with being true to oneself.
From this understanding, we can derive the proper components of honesty and the way in which it ought to be manifested in the real world. Honesty begins with being true to oneself, which means
1) Always striving to accurately understand reality and one’s genuine self-interest;
2) Always striving to act on one’s best understanding of reality and one’s genuine self-interest;
3) Never engaging in deliberate self-deception in order to “feel good” or to attain a benefit that one’s best understanding of reality acknowledges is unattainable or contrary to one’s self-interest.
A person who is true to himself will diligently seek out information about the aspects of reality with which he needs to interact in order to benefit himself. He will acknowledge what he knows and apply it; he will acknowledge what he does not know and seek it out. He will put what he knows into practice to maximize benefits to himself, given his best understanding of reality. In doing so, he might fail in his goal or overlook a facet of reality. However, we cannot fault him for doing his best—especially if he resolves to improve his knowledge and avoid similar errors in the future. The honest individual will recognize that his personal failings and undesirable circumstances are not unavoidably imposed on him by external forces beyond his control; he will refuse to remain a passive victim and will resist negative external pressures.
Note that honesty does not begin with communication with other people; it begins with the self. A person can be perfectly honest with himself and not say a word to another person in a given situation.
Let us imagine a man sitting in a theater, watching a film whose central ideas he recognizes to be contrary to his best self-interest. Would it be wise for the man to immediately declare his realization to the rest of the audience? Of course not. The man can recognize all the failings of the film and genuinely seek to act in a manner otherwise than as the film suggests—without ever speaking a word about it to anyone. If he does talk about the film to everyone in the audience while the film is playing, the man would in fact be committing a dishonest act; he would be engaged in self-deception concerning his genuine self-interest—which does not include being expelled from the theater.
A rationally selfish individual does not see himself as possessing an inherent responsibility to other people—unless that responsibility was consensually entered into in the form of a promise, contract, or agreement. Thus, he is not obligated to give all other people the truth about himself, his thoughts, or his understanding of reality; he can choose to do so only if it serves his best self-interest. This lack of obligation does not give him license to mislead other people or to give them deliberate falsehoods, however. He has three options whenever he interacts with another person: stating the whole truth, stating part of the truth, or silence.
Sometimes stating the whole truth or a part of it to other people will anger or offend those people so that they react in a manner harmful to the truthful individual. The honest man is under no obligation to speak in such circumstances, and silence is a superior option. However, in some situations even silence is detrimental. If a robber-murderer asks an individual where his family is hiding, the individual would not only betray the people he values by telling the truth; the individual is morally obligated to mislead the robber-murderer in order to save his family. After all, if the individual were to stay silent, the robber-murderer might kill him for being uncooperative. Misleading the robber-murderer might send him off on a futile search and buy the man and his family time to escape or organize retaliation.
Thus, when communicating with other people, the honest man will use the following set of principles:
1) When it benefits or does not harm him, he will tell all or part of the truth.
2) When it harms him to tell all or part of the truth, he will stay silent.
3) Only when it harms him to either tell the truth or to stay silent, he will tell a falsehood.
The only time an individual can be harmed by either telling the truth or by staying silent is if he is dealing with an immensely irrational and immoral other. Such a person is rabidly intolerant—to the extent that he construes anything short of active support for his incorrect or destructive plans, ideas, and actions as a threat. Furthermore, such a person will go out of his way to punish an individual who tells a truth the irrational person does not like or even stays silent when asked what he thinks about the irrational person’s ideas and actions. No honest man owes such a person the truth; he should simply minimize the damage such a person could deal to him by stating a falsehood once and avoiding the person subsequently.
In most cases, however, other people have both rational and irrational attributes to them and to their activities. The honest man can remain entirely truthful with those people, provided that he does not tell them every single opinion of his about the subject in question. When he praises those people for their positive, rational attributes, he commits no dishonesty; he does indeed see value in the attributes he praises. When he omits criticizing their negative, irrational attributes, he also commits no dishonesty; he is merely staying silent to others while being honest about those negative attributes to himself. The rational man is not obligated to improve other people or to correct their deficiencies; his responsibility to himself dictates that he make the best use of other people’s positive attributes and address the negative ones only insofar as they harm him personally.
The rationally selfish approach to honesty contrasts greatly with the stereotypical “brutally frank” policy. The “brutally frank” person is really a believer in the truth/reality and mind/body dichotomies; he “tells it like it is,” irrespective of the consequences—whether or not it benefits or harms him. The extreme “brutally frank” person will tell the robber-murderer exactly where his family is hiding, because he thinks he is obliged to give the exact and full truth to everybody. The more moderate and more typical “brutally frank” person will broadcast his every negative opinion of other people directly to them; in doing so, he will rarely convince those people to change their ways, and he will usually alienate them and forfeit the positive values that those people could have given him. In worse situations, he will create enemies who will obstruct him at every turn.
When honesty ceases to be relevant to the real-world self-interest of the individual, it is no longer genuine honesty; it becomes the floating abstraction of “brutal frankness”—detached from reality in that it has no purpose, use, or application other than to frustrate the aims of the “brutally frank” person and to insult those around him.
The genuinely honest person will recognize that a vast number of people exist who are only partially rational; he will recognize that he can gain many values by interacting with such people’s rational facets. If he is honest with himself, he will recognize that he risks losing these genuine values if he vocally condemns those people for their less than fully rational attributes. He will furthermore acknowledge that he holds no responsibility for those people’s negative characteristics, nor is he obligated to correct them. If he wishes to correct them nonetheless, he can remain honest with himself by acknowledging that he can improve others most effectively when he focuses on their positive attributes and thereby encourages them to develop the positives at the expense of the negatives. At the same time, he will steadfastly—though often silently—refuse to assist others in amplifying their negative attributes or in conducting negative actions.
One aspect of life in which the honest man will never fail to be fully true and open with other people is in fulfilling explicit promises to them—such as business contracts, explicit mutual agreements, or personal guarantees. The rational man only makes promises when he knows that he can keep them and that it is in his self-interest to do so.
Ayn Rand recognized the crucial importance of honesty and included it in her list of the seven cardinal Objectivist virtues precisely because the rewards of honesty are real. They do not consist of performing the “duty” of honesty for its own sake; rather, they are the tangible material benefits that individuals receive from being true to themselves and true to others when it benefits them. The honest person develops a reputation for never deceiving himself or misrepresenting reality to rational people; this reputation gives others an incentive to interact with him to achieve mutual gains. He also becomes known for focusing on and cultivating the positive values others can offer him—and thus receives ever more such values. Actions have consequences, and honest actions yield ample fruit. (author G. Stolyarov II) Jesse Lackman
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 30, 2008 18:57:13 GMT -5
I love the virtue of honesty, but how is it that no one trusts me anywayz. ? I recon trust is another subject, and it certainly NEEDS to be earned, for it to have any REAL and devining value, eh?
|
|
|
Post by double speak on Jan 30, 2008 20:44:18 GMT -5
wanttobewithgit (or Michelle Landless) has history of double speak - she says something going down one path then when asked to clarify changes her story - just like example above
oh well - some people have trouble letting go of 2x2 behaviors
|
|
|
Post by honesty on Jan 30, 2008 20:50:48 GMT -5
For instance, try speaking as Frank does routinely on this forum to your boss; or a customer in your shop, or even a person on the street. Be "ruthlessly honest" and strip out all the "doublespeak" and "euphemisms". The consequences could range from losing your job to a well-deserved fist in the face. Speak as GIT does and the consequence would be the loss of all self-respect.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jan 30, 2008 21:02:10 GMT -5
I posted something offensive here, I don't want to be doing that so I removed it.
I'm sorry,
Jesse
|
|
|
Post by layla on Jan 30, 2008 21:37:31 GMT -5
I also posted offensively and have removed my posts. I apologize to all, especially to Jesse since most were directed to him. I apologize to "to layla" also. One, because now his/her post does not make sense and two, I am truly sorry because that was not a nice thing to say to you.
|
|
|
Post by to layla on Jan 30, 2008 21:42:22 GMT -5
some people are not impressed with marilyn
|
|
|
Post by Paxil Pete on Jan 30, 2008 22:08:35 GMT -5
FAITHFUL are the wounds of a friend, as it says in the Jewish Proverb. A true friend can tell you you're acting like a jerk; not because they want to be mean, but because they know you can take the truth from them and in the end are more thankful for the HONESTY than if they gave you insincere compliments all the time, which we know are disingenious, and even manipulative, not to mention very honest. A true friend knows that you are not above reproach, YET not beyond the love of God. I love this! And... just speaking here for myself, I can tell you I have been many, many times grateful for friends who have cut me deep, but... then are there to sew me back together again. That's how I grow. And.... you gotta love people who (out of kindness and care, not out of rudeness or some sick need to make you feel bad) are willing to tell you that the dress really dose make you look fat and you have green gunk all in your teeth... 'cause that's what keeps me from looking bad in public. I don't think it's about *never*giving an honest opinion that might possibly in some way ever be considered offensive (Nobody really *enjoys* being told they have spinach in their teeth, right? LOL! At least I sure don't.) but--if you know their heart behind it, and they come from a pure place, and you know they aren't purposefully trying to be hurtful or disrespectful--well... then somehow that makes it okay to hear. Of course...that doesn't mean I don't sometimes feel terribly embarrased about not being more perfect and wish I had done things differently... but then...we are all imperfect before God. God doesn't love us because we're perfect... He loves us because we belong to Him. I am very grateful for His mercy and kindness. peace, freespirit Amen to this-- there are times when we know our honest words or actions might be hurtful, BUT, we sure don't want to be dishonest, either; because we care about how dishonesty is more damaging in the long run. Rather, if something we say or do might be hurting someone, to do our best to help during that hurtful time; to in turn be honest about our part in hurting others; to then followup and assist the healing process. I love this concept too;-- how it actually works is quite beautiful. God does not leave us orphans; We belong to God; the good, the bad and the ugly. He takes us as we are and loves us and comforts us and helps us to heal, grow, help others,--- Jesus' showed us to love others -- the good, the bad and the ugly, even though they may not be socially acceptable to society-- So, HOW did Jesus show honesty and was He what you would call brutally honest or blatantly honest or was He so full of God's power that in His honesty was at times FIERCE? Well, wasn't it Jesus who drew the line in the sand? Wasn't it Jesus to gave CORRECTION repetitively? Wasn't it Jesus who SPOKE OUT on behalf of those rejected by society and SPOKE OUT against wrong-doing as/when He saw it? Did Jesus wait for a more politically correct time to correct the Pharisees and let them know in no uncertain terms that they were full of WOE. Jesus. Yes, I do think there were many who did not like his direct HONESTY. In fact, there were times when the multitudes followed Him, until of course He preached on something that was just UNacceptable to them..........wow, come to think of it, JESUS Himself did offend and reprove........... John 6 -- Jesus was teaching His disciples about how they needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood and dwell in Him and He in them, etc, etc, and in verses 60-61 [it says]- Many there fore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [in otherwords, "This is unacceptable!"] -When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmered at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? and so on............... -- verse 66 says- From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him...Jesus, again sets the standard in what it means to be a true friend; there were many times when His honesty and truth cut deep, but He never forsook and still does not forsake us--though His truth often cuts like a knife....
|
|
|
Post by GiveShareLove on Jan 30, 2008 22:15:33 GMT -5
I love knowing that I can be honest with my true friends and they don't forsake me just because they find my honest FEELINGS and/or sayings unacceptable. But, rather, my true friends stay with me and are there for me EVEN WHEN I say stuff that is difficult to accept--difficult[hard], but HONEST.
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jan 30, 2008 23:30:15 GMT -5
wanttobewithgit (or Michelle Landless) has history of double speak - she says something going down one path then when asked to clarify changes her story - just like example above oh well - some people have trouble letting go of 2x2 behaviors You're wrong. But...>I wouldn't expect you to see that...if you had the ability to read (correctly) I wouldn't have to tell you you were wrong. My name is not Michelle Landless, thanks...I have a husband I love very much, and that's not his last name...nor mine. Nor do I "wanttobe" with anyone aside from him AND God, always. Again, in this thread now, have the last word...it's all the time I have to spend on your ridiculous behavior right now. Have a pleasant evening! M.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jan 31, 2008 2:20:16 GMT -5
Speak as GIT does and the consequence would be the loss of all self-respect.
I have sufficient self-respect to ask for a retraction of your false statement that I "swear with regularity".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2008 6:20:32 GMT -5
quote - "Did Jesus live by this code?"
Yes, all the time. He had one saying for the unsaved and another for his own people.
quote - "Was Jesus careful to not say anything that someone would consider offensive?"
Usually, but sometimes he could be blunt.
quote - "Did Jesus speak plainly? Or did he employ deceptive mechanisms to conceal the true intent of his speech?"
Recall his euphemism about Lazarus sleeping? Recall his use of parables to reach those he wanted to reach, and exclude those who offended him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2008 6:36:28 GMT -5
quotes from Cherie... Disagrees with beliefs - lost his vision If you share our vision, and you revert to the vision shard by the world, then you have lost our vision.Difference of opinion - wrong spirit Usually the "opinion" is backed by a way of living, and alliances to outside beliefs we don't hold to.Doesn't buy everything - lack of faith, loves the world And this "loves the world" is usually the factor which stands out in my eyes - talks like the world, dresses like the word, smokes and gambles like the world, loves Hollywood like the world etc etc etcGoing to hell - lost eternity I am not to judge who is going to hell, but I do know what is behavior not conducive to a Christ life.Worker's Rules - standards of the kingdom The "standards of the kingdom" are those standards specified in the bible, whether there be workers or not.Rape - taking advantage of ; Never heard the word used in any meetinggroping a feel to rape - taking liberties Never heard the word used in any meetingempty talk - good visit inconvenience - privilege doing it workers' way - for kingdom/gospel's sake; The scripture is there for us ALL to observe, including workers.worker taboos - things that aren't edifying Like smoking dope? Divorce? Forsaking the assembling of ourselves together? Or, like this TMB, sitting in the seat of the scorners?life dictated by workers - self-denial, suffering, persecution Life dictated by Christ. It was He who spoke these things (please read and take note.)sucker - convert, honest heart Shows in their spirit, doesn't it?light - their method; walk in "the light" as Jesus walked ... we are all asked to do so.advertising with outer appearance/actions (EX: peculiar people, bearing marks of Christ) Now, where do we read this?conformity - unity In the Irvine bible it reads "don't be conformed to this world." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?poor - workers selling all and giving to the poor Poor as being poor in material possessions. Rich as in having a hundred fold, homes and children etc. Something the Pharisees of this present world simply don't understand.their method - the truth as it is in Jesus Read the New Covenant - it gives the complete instruction for living as Christ intended we should live.their method - God's plan This is a repeatworkers' rules - standards of the kingdom This is a repeat?As an aside, from our first web site. Early VOT's, and later their broad church, sought to bypass Jesus' commandments. They proved quite inventive, for instance in regards the sermon on the mount they claim: J esus was not giving commandments but general principles. Jesus was speaking in hyperbole. Jesus referred to the spiritual realm, and not the human. Some clergy may attain this standard, but the laity need not concern themselves. Jesus’ sermon is contradicted by other texts. Jesus is referring to attitudes, and not the actual act. Jesus gave the commandments because he thought the world was about to end. The present condition of the world makes the commandments unlivable. Jesus made his precepts unobtainable, therefore we will learn repentance. Another age will begin on the earth where these standard can be achieved. Jesus was speaking for what he would do in our stead.
|
|
|
Post by Hummm on Jan 31, 2008 7:31:29 GMT -5
|
|