Lesson 4: how not to lie

Graeme, Graeme, Graeme. I have watched you over at Catallaxy break into fits of moral indignation when somebody has apparently misrepresented you. So why did you do it to me?

You know perfectly well my position on terrorism and the threat of islamic socialism. My opinion, based on the reality of deaths, injuries and damage caused, is that terrorism is a minor threat to the west. In Australia you have more chance of dying from pesticide poisoning, lightening strikes, smoking and many other activities that don’t warrant a pretend war. In my opinion, such a minor threat does not warrant your tax-eating and government-loving policy preferences.

But I don’t want to argue that point here. Instead, I want to confront you about these comments:

“No it [issue from previous debate] won’t go away. And neither will the terrorists.”


“And you might think that jihadism will go a way if you just treat it like a natural disaster. An act of God.”


You are clearly implying that I think that terrorism will go away.

I don’t think that. I have never said that. Further, you know I don’t think that. So you are intentionally misrepresenting me. Twice. Bad form Graeme.

I can only assume that you are lying on this issue because you think it helps you to score arguing points. Unforunately it just makes you look like a desperate liar. If you had a good point to make, you would have made it. The correct thing for you to do now is to recant and apologise.


10 Responses to “Lesson 4: how not to lie”

  1. graemebird Says:

    Yes well perhaps I’m guilty of understating my case here because your attitude to terrorism is far more idiotic then that.

    Its true that you’ve never said that if we ignore terrorism it will go away. Instead you idiot. You are treating it like a random and independent variable. And you are talking as if no matter what we do the level of terrorism will stay exactly as it would have been otherwise NOW MATTER WHAT WE DO OR HOW THE TERRORIST NATIONS RESPOND TO WHAT WE DO.

    Your idiocy gets worse the more one contemplates it.

  2. ozrisk Says:

    No GMB, that is not what he is saying (IMHO). He is saying that huge amounts of taxeating is not needed to counter such a small threat to our well-being.
    The bigger threat is the taxeating itself.

  3. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme has it wrong and ozrisk has it right.

    I have never said or implied terrorism is random. I have never said or implied the level of terrorism is independent of our actions. I don’t believe those things.

    I’m getting worried Graeme. I had assumed that you were intentionally misrepresenting me but now it seems you actually don’t understand. That makes you quite a bit dumber than I had assumed.

    What I have said is that the threat from terrorism is low. It’s a simple enough sentence Graeme. Which bit don’t you understand?

  4. Boris Says:

    No John, it is you who doesn’t understand this time. Because what Bird is sayin is that while statistically terrorism may be a small threat today, if we become complacent about it, it will snowball to become a big threat. Very big threat. It is very clear that terrorists want to either destroy or enslave us. At the moment they can’t. But for whatever reasons, they have a lot of support around the globe. Hardcore financial and logistic support from a few governments and elites, and a very broad moral support. And if WE (in Bird’s terms) don’t clearly show that we won’t tolerate that, we are likely to face 10000 times bigger threat than we face today.

    What he is saying (not always very clearly) is that by saying terrorism is a small threat you kind of think it will remain a small threat into the future, so we shouldn’t worry too much. That’s where Bird and I disagree with you.

    We may disgagree what to do about it, but we agree with Bird that we should do something about this “small threat” sooner rather than later.

  5. John Humphreys Says:

    Boris — are you reading the comments clearly? The topic here is lying, not terrorism. Check the title. It’s a good clue.

    Graeme initially accused me of believing terrorism would go away if we ignored it. That was a lie. Then he accused me of believing that terrorism would stay the same no matter what we did. That also was a lie.

    Which bit don’t you understand.

    I understand that you and Bird and scared shitless by the terrorists. I think you are wrong to be so scared and you have no basis for your crackpot theory about terrorists taking over the world. I think it amazingly dangerous that a bunch of irrationally scared government-lovers are able to so effectively waste trillions of dollars without any basis. It all re-enforces by belief that fear is the lifeblood of government. But all of this doesn’t matter here because it’s not the topic at hand.

    You probably still don’t understand so I’ll repeat it. The topic here is not terrorism, but lying. Graeme lied about my views. Three times now. The lie is clear and on public record. The fact that you support it shows either an approval of lying or a comprehension problem.

    If you chaps can’t follow simple logic then it makes conversation difficult.

  6. Boris Says:

    John, you are clearly learning from Graeme his language (who is teaching whom?).

    But I am just interpreting what Graeme is saying. Litterally, he may have been inaccurate in representation of your views. But one can be forgiven for saying that if someone thinks the threat is small and therefore we shouldn’t be too concerned about, then he implies that it will stay small or go away. Because for anyone reasonable it is clear it will grow. We may argue how fast it will grow, but if we agree it will grow, then logically the fact that it is small now is not a sufficient reason to ignore it. Cancer may be small now, but …

  7. John Humphreys Says:

    “Litterally, he may have been inaccurate in representation of your views.”

    And that, dear Boris, was the topic of conversation. It is not nice to misrepresent other people’s views. Especially if it was intentional — and unless Bird is pretty stupid, my views have been clear for a long time.

    If you agree I was correct in spotting the misrepresentation, then you shouldn’t say I am wrong. I will read your retraction as implied in the above sentence and no apology necessary.

    But you are right that I probably bit off your head too quickly. I accept it was probably an honest mistake. Just please try to read the posts clearly in the future.

    As for whether the terrorist risk is increasing, that should be for another post. But there is no evidence that it is a significant risk now or that it will be a significant risk in the future. US govt stats show that, besides Iraq, little has changed on the terrorist front for 30 years. The biggest thing that’s changed is the level of irrational fear and the noisy harping of government-lovers proposing their new pet government project.

    Fostering fear about supposed far-off catastrophies is a perfect way to justify huge growth in government, removal of freedoms and big government spending. These fear campaigns come and go regularly by all sorts of statists and they generally have few objective reasons to be so scared. The terrorist-under-the-bed fear campaign is no better.

  8. graemebird Says:

    I didn’t misrepresent you FOOL.

    You used retrospective thinking.

    You used cost-benefit when we were talking a defense matter. The same logic would have you pay the danegeld.

    I didn’t fucking misrepresent you man.

    Your ideas were moronic.

    And you aint a safe pair of hands anytime in the next two decades.

  9. graemebird Says:

    It aint about fear brother.

    You worry about your own residual fear of Yaweh.

    Got nothing to do with me.

    Its not about fear its about your idiotic defense policy. Which amounted to pretending that terrorism wasn’t an act of war. And our response didn’t affect it at all.

  10. Terje (say tay-a) Says:

    But there is no evidence that it is a significant risk now or that it will be a significant risk in the future. US govt stats show that, besides Iraq, little has changed on the terrorist front for 30 years.

    September 11 was to the war on terrorism what Martyn Bryant was to the war on guns. Both guns and terrorism are a means of aggression. Focusing your respons on the means rather than the motive seems to be a common problem in both cases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: