9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE Feb 4, 2010 12:39:43 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Feb 4, 2010 12:39:43 GMT -4
The reason for the differences in the use of "liar" is the inability of discerning a persons true state of mind. How do you know the whether a person who has been presented with conclusive contradicting evidence is knowingly ignoring it, incapable of understanding it, or too blinded to consider it?
It is fair to call people who claim that vaccines cause autism liars. Because there is no evidence to support their claim while at the same time they ignore a significant body of evidence that opposes them. Their actual state of mind is a distraction and need not be debated.
It's a fair point that it's difficult to know someone else's true state of mind, especially on the internet. That leads me to believe that it's better to avoid calling anyone a liar, rather than mis-apply that label to the ignorant or unintelligent.
The definition I proposed is a description of actual usage. I restrict my use of the term because it is considered uncivil regardless of usage and I wish to maintain civility in all my speech. Civility is one of the strongest points of ApolloHoax.