[jules]

While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. If I say "lutusp killed JFK" then that is a lie, even though I do not know that it is false. It is a lie exactly because I do not know it to be true. Something can be a lie if it is true! Suppose the FA said "he took more pictures" without having seen him taking more pictures, with the intent to deceive the captain to get this guy off the plane. That is a lie even if he did take more pictures, because the FA does not know it to be true.

[lutusp]

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.

Yes, it requires both -- both knowledge that the statement is false, and an intent to deceive.

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

Quote: "Lie : noun : 1 : a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive"

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/lie[noun]

Quote: "Lie : noun : a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a lie>"

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

Quote: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."

Here's how this works. If you have an idea about how a word is defined that conflicts with another's claim, before objecting, look up the word.

EDIT: also, think for a minute about your claim:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.

How can a person be said to have an intent to deceive if he isn't aware that his remark is false? How does he form an intent to deceive using a statement he believes to be true?

[jules]

Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking.

You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam-webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly contradict what you claim.

1 :

a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

2 : something that misleads or deceives

3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)

By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but that's what it says.

[lutusp]

Here's what you said:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.

Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.

Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be charged with perjury. So knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would seem to be important.

[jules]

> > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.

> Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.

Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true.

> Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason

Yea, the reason being that those directly contradict what you said.

It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

[lutusp]

Okay, I will try again. Explain how a person can intend to deceive if he doesn't know his remarks are false. An "intent to deceive" means the speaker knows his remarks are deceitful -- i.e. other than truthful.

The legal definition of lying, and by far the most common one in the everyday world, is that lying requires an intent to deceive and the utterance of a knowing falsehood.

> It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion.

What? By defining "lying" as it is defined in the law and in most references? How so?

> only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote

When I have quoted you, I have done it by cutting and pasting your exact words, as you typed them, directly from the display. How is that twisting your words?

> for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

It is not "obviously false," it is not false at all. Lying is knowing, intentional falsehood. To lie, one must know that the statement is false.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

Quote: "1 : a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."

How is that in any way confusing to you?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Quote: "Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)." [emphasis added]

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...

Quote: "When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.

The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction." [emphasis added]

Still confused?