Lying By Omission

November 4, 2008 § 22 Comments

A few folks seem to have a hard time wrapping their minds around the concept of lying by omission: of lying by leaving out crucial information one has a duty to disclose. But if you do it in business it can sometimes land you in jail. A significant amount of business law covers disclosure, and a fraudulent failure to disclose material information is sometimes a criminal offense.

So whether or not you are personally familiar with the concept of lying by omission, the society you live in is certainly familiar with the concept: familiar enough to send you to jail, in some circumstances.


§ 22 Responses to Lying By Omission

  • e. says:

    Zippy,Don’t let your new-found Protestantism hit you on your way out; for what you’ve written here is the same accusation many anti-Catholic Protestants level at the Church when talking about its supposed omission of certain details they believe things as the Catechism leaves out.Again, learn the concept of what a brochure is about as well as learn humility before you assign such hostile intentions onto people who may, in fact, be innocent!

  • zippy says:

    So, only a Protestant can believe that there is such a thing as lying by omission? What an odd claim.

  • e. says:

    You missed the point entirely.The fact is that your malicious and uncharitable accusation is just as baseless as those of Protestants.Unless, of course, you agree with them on such things.Although, given how awful you’ve behaved here to the point of wanting to have Pro-Lifers criminally prosecuted, it seems par for the course!Mote and all!

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Geez, c’mon, E. He didn’t say he wants pro-lifers criminally prosecuted, and he didn’t mean that. He meant that there is such a thing as deceiving by omission, and that it’s even recognized in law.Better be careful, e; you’re starting to sound almost as hysterical and angry as that guy Aristocles over at W4, whereas over here at Zippy’s place you’re usually calmer than he.

  • c matt says:

    <>Don’t let your new-found Protestantism hit you on your way out<>I confess, to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done <>and what I have failed to do<> and I ask you my brothers and sister, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the angels and saints to pray for me to the Lord our God.I don’t think that it’s particularly Protestant.

  • c matt says:

    Although I may have gotten it out of order a bit – Mary and the angels and saints come before the brothers and sisters part.

  • JohnMcG says:

    e,As c matt said, the idea of sins of omission is a very catholic idea.You are basically arguing that literature from RTL organizations should be held to the same credibility standard as a typical product advertisement, and therefore given the same amount of credibility by the public.I know you care deeply about this election, and for good reasons, but you need to take a step back and realize this would be a very, very, bad thing, and I find it difficult to believe that thwarting Obama is worth the pro-life movement losing its credibility.

  • JohnMcG says:

    The “catholic” above should have a capital “C.”

  • e. says:

    c matt,Unlike what may be your merciful reading, what Zippy has done instead is wrongly convict these folks who may very well be good-intentioned as blatantly guilty for their actions without benefit of a fair hearing (and I’m not necessarily talking about the previous post, but all other posts where he had subsequently made the same malicious accusations).Where folks may have simply wanted to provide a quick summary to highlight the distinct differences between the candidates, Zippy has assigned malicious intentions on the act, automatically declaring them guilty.That’s not right. at all.

  • JohnMcG says:

    Zippy has made no accusations of anything.What he is doing is pointing to this as an illustration of bad (likely unanticipated) effect of cooperating with evil.The bad effect is that the RTL has reduced its credibility. He is not calling for anybody’s arrest or excommunication.Do you deny this is a bad effect? Or do you think that the proper standard of truth for RTL materials is commercial advertisements?

  • JohnMcG says:

    At a minimum, putting out a flyer like this has seriously diminished the RTL’s ability to advocate against ESCR in the future, correct?

  • e. says:

    john mcg:I appreciate your more charitable tone.However, being a bit familiar with similar situations as in the case of brochures, you need to consider the fact that you’re confined to such limited space.In spite of those limitations, you need to be able to provide various details for comparison (if that’s the intent of your brochure, which it is indeed the case here) as well as distinctions about each of those items you’ve featured there and yet be able to fit all that within such a confined space.Because of these physical limitations, it’s obvious that it’s never supposed to serve as an exhaustive breakdown of every particular detail concerning each and every item featured therein.If you did that, you’d have more of a booklet rather than the concise breakdown more fitting for a brochure as this like the one featured in the subject brochure.Now, unless there is positive evidence for Zippy to claim that this was a deliberate omission so as to perpetrate the kind of deception he’s accusing Pro-Lifers of; I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when it comes to what may very well be their genuine intention to save as many lives as they possibly can.

  • zippy says:

    e:Again — yet again — who cares <>why<> an issue which was considered crucial mere months before was elided? It’s effect is to undermine the credibility of pro-life organizations and literature: to give us an objectively good reason not to trust them.

  • e. says:

    Zippy,If the Right-to-Life organization were to provide further evidence that they no longer consider ESCR a Pro-Life concern, I would conclude likewise — in fact, I would conclude more than this.However, to conclude that simply on the basis of one circular?You of all people know that one data point does not make a trend.

  • zippy says:

    It <>isn’t<> a data point in isolation. I and especially Lydia have provided a bunch of documentation on the subject. More is around you if you are but willing to look for yourself.

  • Zippy,Key words: “duty to disclose”, in this context, to these persons.In order to make your case, you have to show that they have a duty to disclose the ESCR information in this context to these persons. You haven’t yet made that argument; at least, I haven’t seen you make such an argument. But you have assumed that they have such a duty, and then (implicitly) accused them of lying by omission. Which is worse: lying by omission, or accusing someone of lying by omission, without showing that they have a duty to say what they didn’t say?In the peace of Christ,– Bryan

  • e. says:

    Zippy,Before engaging in any Anti-“Right-to-Life” crusade, you had better make sure first-hand that your evidence is solid and the basis for your accusation is genuine.Please consider that not only would you be causing what may be irreparable damage to that organization but also consider well the extensive harm that would be done to the innocent lives that would also be at stake such as the unborn.Are you really going to go that extent as to endanger <>their<> fight for life?

  • zippy says:

    I’m not <>causing<> damage. I am merely <>calling attention to it<>.

  • Scott W. says:

    Well, I called it for Obama when he took Ohio. We now return you to our regularly scheduled program of pretending torture isn’t really torture as long as it is done by the good guys on <>really<>x10^23 bad men. šŸ™‚

  • Anonymous says:

    Time to reflect in THE SINGLE VOTING ISSUE, that history will review:Countless rationalizations and moral equivocations from convoluted Cafeteria Catholics & pathetic Auschwitz Debate Clubbers, who twist themselves in knots trying to hide THIS sun with one finger:The grotesque evil of increasing with FOCA the1.5 million butchered, OR the yearly million babies offered at the altar of Moloch.Catholic Universities show an utter failure to enlighten this futureā€¦ What will happen?

  • JohnMcG says:

    Let’s say <>Consumer Reports<> evaluated minivans, and said that 25 MPG was a non-negotiable minumum for cars. By this evaluation, the GM van rated best.Then, when it came time to evaluate sedans, gas mileage was suddenly dropped as a criteria, and it wasn’t even mentioned. And it turned out that the GM sedan rated best, despite its MPG of 15 MPG.What would you conclude about <>Consumer Reports<>?Would you trust <>Consumer Reports<> the next time you were in the market for a car?

  • e. says:

    Scott W. Wrote: “We now return you to our regularly scheduled program of pretending torture isn’t really torture as long as it is done by the good guys on reallyx10^23 bad men. :)”Yeah, the Right-to-Life folks are on par with being the ‘Good Guys who support torture’!Really good one, Scott!I’m so glad that folks as you and Zippy are attacking as awful and villainous organization as Right-to-Life.Perhaps their work and, indeed, support for their heinous work will once and for all be terminated — such as those awful and unjust acts of saving innocent life!Down with Right-to-Life!!!How apropos for the upcoming administration!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

What’s this?

You are currently reading Lying By Omission at Zippy Catholic.