Is lying about historical events criminal?

[bustybbwlover]

i'd say this quote sums up why to avoid lying

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

- Mark Twain

Lying about historical events is criminal and the person(s) responsible should be put to death.

you certainly want to put a lot of people to death...you should make a list of those you want dead and start a thread, i'd be curious

 

[Will E Worm]

i'd say this quote sums up why to avoid lying

- Mark Twain


you certainly want to put a lot of people to death...you should make a list of those you want dead and start a thread, i'd be curious

Those who deserve it.

Mark Twain is correct. You don't have to remember your lies if you tell the truth.


Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)


And come he slow, or come he fast,
It is but death who comes at last.
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion (1808)

:elaugh:

 

[josesentme]

Oliver Stone made some good money doing it.

 

[Atar554]

I believe people who make fake historical items or blatantly lie about the past should be put to death.

You shouldn't put historical liars to death. A civilized society doesn't commit murder.

But more to the point, much of history's lies are because there isn't enough information. It's true some people purposely try and deceive but I don't think someone claiming they've found the ruins of "Atlantis" should be put to death...In more serious matters though for those who are trying to openly deceive and change the course of events to suit themselves. If their lies are so believable how good is the source of information to begin with to prove their lies as just that...lies? If the source is clouded who's going to have the ability to make the correct choice? They'd be doing what the liar did; judging History for themselves and making the call without certainty.

If the truth were clear no one would even give them the time of day. I also don't think there's that many people actively trying to corrupt everyone by fudging the past. The past is something people don't really focus on; right or wrong they typically don't.

Most people fudge up the present and therefore the future. Like those who tried to change textbooks for future classrooms to include shit like the Creationists "intelligent design" hocus pocus.

If the death pentalty is going to be your standard for historical documents from X number of years ago. Shouldn't that also apply to those people doing the same things in the present? If the answer is yes as I suspect it might be. You essentially making it illegal to lie. In any form; hello thought police and hello 1984. Just imagine how it could affect things like Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia's themselves. A misprint could cost someone their life potentially; newspapers and reporters in general wouldn't do hard hitting journalism because they wouldn't get the chance to run a retraction if they fuck up and so on.

History is tough that's why you don't rely on one source.

Also if anyone is going to quote Twain it should be from "On the Decay of the Art of Lying".

"The lie, as a virtue, a principle, is eternal; the lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need, the fourth Grace, the tenth Muse, man's best and surest friend is immortal."

 

[Will E Worm]

You shouldn't put historical liars to death. A civilized society doesn't commit murder.

Really? Can we whip them?

But more to the point, much of history's lies are because there isn't enough information. It's true some people purposely try and deceive but I don't think someone claiming they've found the ruins of "Atlantis" should be put to death...[/quote]

I never said someone claiming to find something should be put to death.

Blatant liars. Unless they can be fixed with a nice whipping.

 

[Rey C.]

Robert Wuhl: "History is based on a 'true story'."

The Liberty Valance Theory: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

I don't think it's criminal. But anything that furthers ignorance surely can't be a good thing. But the desire for people to want to have their beliefs reinforced by fiction, myths or just outright lies (posing as fact) didn't just come about with the birth of Fox News. It's probably been going on since man took his first steps upright.

 

[Facetious]

Are we talking about Texas textbooks again?

Tell me about the lies contained in the current State of Texas public school curriculum...

Is the U.S. govt democratic or is it a Constitutional Republic?

 

[Rey C.]

From what little I've read about the situation in Texas, it's not so much what they're including, but what they're intentionally leaving out. As many of us born before 1979 know, "political correctness" isn't something that was born in the 1980's (it's existed for thousands of years)... and, as we can see from the "new history" being taught in Texas, it doesn't JUST apply to the left.

 

[Atar554]

What if the mythic lie inspires good deeds or patriotism that keeps us from anarchy or despotism?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I am surprised no one brought up the "stolen valor" act yet.

 

[Rane1071]

Robert Wuhl: "History is based on a 'true story'."

The Liberty Valance Theory: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

I don't think it's criminal. But anything that furthers ignorance surely can't be a good thing. But the desire for people to want to have their beliefs reinforced by fiction, myths or just outright lies (posing as fact) didn't just come about with the birth of Fox News. It's probably been going on since man took his first steps upright.

Your right. Look at Dan Browns "Davinci Code" and all the nonsense thats come about from that, or those so-called "Rapture" series of books. History and facts become twisted into their own fantasy and then you have gullible and/or stupid people believe it's true. Who knows it might be perceived as "truth" in the future.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Yeah. You're right, Rane. But if you go into a book store none of the stuff you mention would be in the non-fiction sections. Then again, neither would the bible. Or the Koran. Or Dienetics (sic).

 

[ralph furley]

Is wilfully lying about something in public newspapers, books etc or whilst representing an official organisation properly covered by free speech law? I can think of hundreds of examples by historians with axes to grind who blatantly make up, shorten quotations or rely on clearly dodgy sources.

Yet the are merely called disreputable rather than criminal, as if they were merely lying about a personal event. Also, historians do not deal in opinions but arguments. How is something being opinion any sort of defence? I think Holocaust denial laws need to be extended across the board.

It's all very well to attack certain racial groups in general, but to make up facts about particular people is deceitful and unscrupulous. Misrepresenting history should be a crime like any other misdemeanour.

Basically freedom of speech with freedom to lie is meaningless. The latter utterly degrades the former. That includes Mel Gibson. Passion of the Christ wasn't a piece of art, it was yellow propaganda that should land him in jail. And any other piece of "art" that clearly intends to skew history should earn their creators a stay in goal as well.

whatever happened to freedom of speech?

 

[Deepcover]

I don't know. Oliver Stone made the great 1991 film JFK and he was attacked for distorting history but Stone mentions that JFK is a fictionalized film as a "counter-myth" to the "fictional myth" of the Warren Commission.

 

[bustybbwlover]

What if the mythic lie inspires good deeds or patriotism that keeps us from anarchy or despotism?

nothing wrong with anarchy, it's chaos you mean

 

[Atar554]

nothing wrong with anarchy, it's chaos you mean

No no; I indeed meant Anarchy. 1. It's not just a form of government but also a way to describe complete disorder like chaos 2. I know the form of governing seems palpable but it could just as easily be a road warrior-like post apocalyptic society. Communism looked good on paper too.

but yeah I'd include chaos too.

 

[bustybbwlover]

anarchy, when used in the sense of government, is simply a lack of government...which could include chaos, but not necessarily

not a big believer in humanities ability to act human are you?

 

[Atar554]

anarchy, when used in the sense of government, is simply a lack of government...which could include chaos, but not necessarily

not a big believer in humanities ability to act human are you?

I do but not over the long haul. I think there's always going to be atrocities no matter who or what's in charge. It's inevitable; personally we can't weed out all fallibility with a governing body. Perhaps I'm being to fatalistic? I'm not sure. I just feel that Anarchists look at Anarchy as a sort of perfection that just hasn't been employed yet, and I don't subscribed to that atm.

In my mind at its' worst it reminds me of a sort of potential feudalism. Everyone creating their own little fiefdoms.

I appreciate the idea of Anarchy and am honestly intrigued by it. Perhaps if technology gets to the point of something like Star Trek...Where people don't have to do the harder less rewarding jobs in life. Where people aren't driven by the idea that money equals personal wealth, but rather knowledge and humanity itself does.

But then again wtf do I know?

 

[bustybbwlover]

In my mind at its' worst it reminds me of a sort of potential feudalism. Everyone creating their own little fiefdoms.

that is pretty close to what our republican democracy has become...senators and house members get into office and use that power to cut out their fiefdoms, mayor, governors, councilman all do it as well...they make use of their power to alter the shape of our capitalism and/or government to fit their needs and the needs of their ilk (be that those who donated money or those who share their beliefs)...hell sometimes they even use it to alter the realm of employment they're heading into or just came from (oil and media being the prime example i know, probably others)

 

[Atar554]

that is pretty close to what our republican democracy has become...senators and house members get into office and use that power to cut out their fiefdoms, mayor, governors, councilman all do it as well...they make use of their power to alter the shape of our capitalism or government to fit their needs and the needs of their ilk (be that those who donated money or those who share their beliefs)

True; I think that's what all politics will boil down to eventually though.

It's just to easy for the takers to get involved in any system and manipulate it to their will. Fueled by the aspect that no one knows what is ultimately "right" they end up being either honest and pulled in all directions getting little accomplished or going with whomever shouts the loudest or pays the most or their personal interests.

Rebellion and reformation just reset the process.