Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Lying on the forum
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 77620440" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>Okay, but what is the definition of lying you have in mind? Intentional deception? Is the argument that Harry intentionally deceived Lucius and therefore lied?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, that is what I meant. I agree that this would be a lie of omission according to Merriam-Webster's second definition, but I have usually thought of a lie as involving a spoken falsehood or false assertion, like in the first definition. I suppose the relevant definition will depend on the context at hand.</p><p></p><p>For example, if I dress up as DiCaprio and simply walk down the street, hoping that people will see me and mistake me for DiCaprio, am I therefore lying? Would it be right to report this event as, "I saw a liar on Marshal street"?</p><p></p><p></p><p>In the film I don't think Lucius gives Dobby an article of clothing, whereas in the book he (arguably) does.</p><p></p><p>For example, suppose there is a book with $500 hidden inside, and I do not know about the money. I give you the book. Have I given you $500? Would it be right for you to say, "Wow, Zippy is so generous. He gave me $500!" If not, then I don't think Lucius can be said to have given Dobby the sock hidden inside the book.</p><p></p><p>The film director probably found Rowling's scene clumsy. The gift of an old sock is conspicuous and unlikely. Therefore they probably added the book element to Harry's gift for the sake of plausibility. But the added plausibility seems to undercut the idea that a sock is what is being given/gifted by Lucius, and presumably this is why Rowling preferred the implausibility of Harry's sock-gift. Of course one could argue that in the book Lucius also fails to <em>give</em> Dobby a sock in any meaningful sense, but I'd say the idea that Lucius gives Dobby a sock is more believable on the book's rendering than on the film's.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Lol - I missed the full force of this the first time around.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 77620440, member: 342410"] Okay, but what is the definition of lying you have in mind? Intentional deception? Is the argument that Harry intentionally deceived Lucius and therefore lied? Yes, that is what I meant. I agree that this would be a lie of omission according to Merriam-Webster's second definition, but I have usually thought of a lie as involving a spoken falsehood or false assertion, like in the first definition. I suppose the relevant definition will depend on the context at hand. For example, if I dress up as DiCaprio and simply walk down the street, hoping that people will see me and mistake me for DiCaprio, am I therefore lying? Would it be right to report this event as, "I saw a liar on Marshal street"? In the film I don't think Lucius gives Dobby an article of clothing, whereas in the book he (arguably) does. For example, suppose there is a book with $500 hidden inside, and I do not know about the money. I give you the book. Have I given you $500? Would it be right for you to say, "Wow, Zippy is so generous. He gave me $500!" If not, then I don't think Lucius can be said to have given Dobby the sock hidden inside the book. The film director probably found Rowling's scene clumsy. The gift of an old sock is conspicuous and unlikely. Therefore they probably added the book element to Harry's gift for the sake of plausibility. But the added plausibility seems to undercut the idea that a sock is what is being given/gifted by Lucius, and presumably this is why Rowling preferred the implausibility of Harry's sock-gift. Of course one could argue that in the book Lucius also fails to [I]give[/I] Dobby a sock in any meaningful sense, but I'd say the idea that Lucius gives Dobby a sock is more believable on the book's rendering than on the film's. Lol - I missed the full force of this the first time around. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Lying on the forum
Top
Bottom