Talking to people is not computer code. In this admittedly contrived situation, they are looking for you to say it's good. You give an answer _to a different question_. Either people realize and you've violated the social expectation or they don't realize and you've misdirected them. Avoiding the question in a way that's misleading people has the same result as a lie even if not technically the same thing
If you refused to answer the question in this statement that's not lieing. If you said "no, it wasn't good" that wouldn't be lieing.
The entire camp of people in this thread with your viewpoint are acting like a stereotypical genie where as long as everything you say is technically accurate you have done nothing wrong even when you are will full disregarding the extra layers of meaning that are part of human to human conversation
Also, saying "thank you for making it" isn't answering a question at all, so it isn't "answering a different question".
"The entire camp of people in this thread" with my viewpoint simply disagree with you. You attribute dishonesty to things we would say, when we know that saying those things would be honest.
So you can keep reiterating the same viewpoint over and over again, and I'll keep disagreeing with it every time (regardless of whether I spend the time to reply again).
You didn't say that talking to people was like computer code, you are describing talking to people like it's computer code so it is relevant.
>Also, saying "thank you for making it" isn't answering a question at all, so it isn't "answering a different question".
Saying that you're not lieing because you are haven't said something that is false out of context, but is still misleading _on purpose_ is the most pedantic thing I have heard all year.
And just don't reply if you are going to be done with a discussion, telling people you might not bother replying to them is condescending and uncivil for this board
> You didn't say that talking to people was like computer code, you are describing talking to people like it's computer code so it is relevant.
That's your opinion, which I disagree with. So from my view it is still irrelevant. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point.
> And just don't reply if you are going to be done with a discussion, telling people you might not bother replying to them is condescending and uncivil for this board
There was nothing uncivil, nor condescending about what I said. I just said I would continue to disagree even if I didn't continue the conversation.
I think we've pretty much beaten this disagreement to death, and it's time for me to move on.
>That's your opinion, which I disagree with. So from my view it is still irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant just because you disagree with it. That's not what irrelevant means. It would be irrelevant if the truth or falsehood of the statement had no impact on the rest of the argument.
>I think we've pretty much beaten this disagreement to death, and it's time for me to move on.
Then just move on...stop trying to get the last word in. (I'm not the person you were replying).
Dishonesty is about misleading somebody, regardless of what you say. You can say 100% truthful things and still mislead people, which is still dishonest. A common method of dishonesty is by omitting important things. We are saying that we feel that your response is sidestepping the question asked of you, which is dishonest by omission, because this omission misleads. Communication is about more than the words you say.
While it is true that you can mislead by omission, every ommission of information is not an attempt to be dishonest.
Sometimes you just don't want people to know one way or the other. That is the scenario I described.
Many in this thread say that not answering is dishonesty, and ascribe my not answering the question to intending to lead my wife's grandmother to believe that I liked her food.
As I believe I pointed out earlier, my intention would not be to lead her to believe that I thought it was either good or bad -- I was not going to reveal the answer at all.
Leaving someone in the dark with no intention of pushing them to incorrect assumptions is not dishonesty.
Also, people can make incorrect assumptions about what is meant by what is said, even when the speaker has no intention of them making those assumptions.
It is the intention of the speaker that makes omission of information honest or dishonest.
If you refused to answer the question in this statement that's not lieing. If you said "no, it wasn't good" that wouldn't be lieing.
The entire camp of people in this thread with your viewpoint are acting like a stereotypical genie where as long as everything you say is technically accurate you have done nothing wrong even when you are will full disregarding the extra layers of meaning that are part of human to human conversation