When a secret is no longer one

[AmosMorrison]

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

Whom are you quoting?

Ofcourse you @LuckyR

Is the red identical to the blue?

@LuckyR

If all the talk is about the secret, it is negative as well as positive too. Labeling it a lie is partially right but you have to look at both sides of the coin too. A lie becomes a lie if it is done intentionally to favor one over the other wrongfully. However, it does not remain a lie if it is done to do justice to someone wrongfully accused. Taking it back to the secrecy. A secret remains positive if it is to keep the truth hidden so that bonds do not break apart. But if a secret is to remain so that the wrong does not taste justice, it becomes negative. Thus, terming secrets as lies is not just. You have to consider the aftereffects of words. If you feel a wrong can be done right, it is better to spit out even if the weight is small. But if it means that bonds will break and the right one will be considered wrong, keep the secrets with utmost secrecy even if they weigh heavy.

[Pattern-chaser]

You can't know the difficulty of keeping a secret without considering whether keeping the secret requires lying or not.

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

Is the red identical to the blue?

To me, this brings a minor issue to the fore, that of whether omitting (part of) the truth is lying? A simple untruth is clear and obvious. But a part-truth, true except for the omission(s)? I think omission is what we might call 'passive lying', while - in the same way - an out-and-out lie is 'active lying'. Passive lying isn't really 'lying' in the simple black-and-white sense that is normally intended. And yet it isn't truth-telling either, again in the simple black-and-white sense that is normally intended.

So are they the same? Is omitting part of the truth really 'lying'?

[LuckyR]

Whom are you quoting?

Ofcourse you @LuckyR

Is the red identical to the blue?

@LuckyR

If all the talk is about the secret, it is negative as well as positive too. Labeling it a lie is partially right but you have to look at both sides of the coin too. A lie becomes a lie if it is done intentionally to favor one over the other wrongfully. However, it does not remain a lie if it is done to do justice to someone wrongfully accused. Taking it back to the secrecy. A secret remains positive if it is to keep the truth hidden so that bonds do not break apart. But if a secret is to remain so that the wrong does not taste justice, it becomes negative. Thus, terming secrets as lies is not just. You have to consider the aftereffects of words. If you feel a wrong can be done right, it is better to spit out even if the weight is small. But if it means that bonds will break and the right one will be considered wrong, keep the secrets with utmost secrecy even if they weigh heavy.

Perhaps I was unclear, I just had a problem with being quoted (literally with quotation marks) inaccurately, with similar wording that gives a different meaning to what I said originally. Say whatever you want, just leave off the quotation marks if you want to respond to something different than what I posted.

[LuckyR]

You can't know the difficulty of keeping a secret without considering whether keeping the secret requires lying or not.

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

Is the red identical to the blue?

To me, this brings a minor issue to the fore, that of whether omitting (part of) the truth is lying? A simple untruth is clear and obvious. But a part-truth, true except for the omission(s)? I think omission is what we might call 'passive lying', while - in the same way - an out-and-out lie is 'active lying'. Passive lying isn't really 'lying' in the simple black-and-white sense that is normally intended. And yet it isn't truth-telling either, again in the simple black-and-white sense that is normally intended.

So are they the same? Is omitting part of the truth really 'lying'?

To me, you are describing the difference between misleading (a large group of behavior) and lying (a smaller subset within misleading).

[LuckyR]

Before one can evaluate the mores of secret keepers, it is best to consider the categories of secrets that are told.

There is info that the keeper is typically obligated to tell (without being asked), so is being asked to betray a trust.

There is info that the keeper wouldn't typically run and tell, but is likely to be asked about, thus is being asked to lie.

There is info that the keeper wouldn't be asked about, so doesn't require the keeper to do anything out of the ordinary. You might say: why would the secret teller tell it to someone with no likely cause to tell the secret? Which gets to a major reason for telling secrets: to unburden a guilty conscience.

[AmosMorrison]

Ofcourse you @LuckyR

Is the red identical to the blue?

@LuckyR

If all the talk is about the secret, it is negative as well as positive too. Labeling it a lie is partially right but you have to look at both sides of the coin too. A lie becomes a lie if it is done intentionally to favor one over the other wrongfully. However, it does not remain a lie if it is done to do justice to someone wrongfully accused. Taking it back to the secrecy. A secret remains positive if it is to keep the truth hidden so that bonds do not break apart. But if a secret is to remain so that the wrong does not taste justice, it becomes negative. Thus, terming secrets as lies is not just. You have to consider the aftereffects of words. If you feel a wrong can be done right, it is better to spit out even if the weight is small. But if it means that bonds will break and the right one will be considered wrong, keep the secrets with utmost secrecy even if they weigh heavy.

Perhaps I was unclear, I just had a problem with being quoted (literally with quotation marks) inaccurately, with similar wording that gives a different meaning to what I said originally. Say whatever you want, just leave off the quotation marks if you want to respond to something different than what I posted.

Please double-check where are the quotation marks on my comment which you are responding too. Be clear so we can proceed!

[Pattern-chaser]

Please double-check where are the quotation marks on my comment which you are responding too. Be clear so we can proceed!

Please stop being obtuse, and get on with it. Out of frustration, I have assembled the relevant phrases, and attributed them.

You can't know the difficulty of keeping a secret without considering whether keeping the secret requires lying or not.

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

LuckyR mentioned "lying", and you apparently changed that to "secrecy".



Since you had changed the words, LuckyR asked if you were, perhaps, quoting someone else. You confirmed that you were quoting LuckyR:

Whom are you quoting?

Ofcourse you @ LuckyR

I.e. you changed LuckyR's words, but claimed they were a quote by placing them in quotation marks. When we place the words of another in quotation marks, we generally mean that their exact words have been quoted. In this case, you changed LuckyR's words, not quoted them.


Does that clarify matters?

[LuckyR]

Please double-check where are the quotation marks on my comment which you are responding too. Be clear so we can proceed!

Please stop being obtuse, and get on with it. Out of frustration, I have assembled the relevant phrases, and attributed them.

You can't know the difficulty of keeping a secret without considering whether keeping the secret requires lying or not.

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

LuckyR mentioned "lying", and you apparently changed that to "secrecy".



Since you had changed the words, LuckyR asked if you were, perhaps, quoting someone else. You confirmed that you were quoting LuckyR:

Whom are you quoting?

Ofcourse you @ LuckyR

I.e. you changed LuckyR's words, but claimed they were a quote by placing them in quotation marks. When we place the words of another in quotation marks, we generally mean that their exact words have been quoted. In this case, you changed LuckyR's words, not quoted them.


Does that clarify matters?

You, my friend have the patience of Job.

[AmosMorrison]

Please double-check where are the quotation marks on my comment which you are responding too. Be clear so we can proceed!

Please stop being obtuse, and get on with it. Out of frustration, I have assembled the relevant phrases, and attributed them.

You can't know the difficulty of keeping a secret without considering whether keeping the secret requires lying or not.

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

LuckyR mentioned "lying", and you apparently changed that to "secrecy".



Since you had changed the words, LuckyR asked if you were, perhaps, quoting someone else. You confirmed that you were quoting LuckyR:

Whom are you quoting?

Ofcourse you @ LuckyR

I.e. you changed LuckyR's words, but claimed they were a quote by placing them in quotation marks. When we place the words of another in quotation marks, we generally mean that their exact words have been quoted. In this case, you changed LuckyR's words, not quoted them.

Does that clarify matters?

You, my friend have the patience of Job.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Now it is clear.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please double-check where are the quotation marks on my comment which you are responding too. Be clear so we can proceed!

Please stop being obtuse, and get on with it. Out of frustration, I have assembled the relevant phrases, and attributed them.

You can't know the difficulty of keeping a secret without considering whether keeping the secret requires lying or not.

So do you want to tell me "how to keep a secret without considering whether keeping it requires secrecy?"

LuckyR mentioned "lying", and you apparently changed that to "secrecy".



Since you had changed the words, LuckyR asked if you were, perhaps, quoting someone else. You confirmed that you were quoting LuckyR:

Whom are you quoting?

Ofcourse you @ LuckyR

I.e. you changed LuckyR's words, but claimed they were a quote by placing them in quotation marks. When we place the words of another in quotation marks, we generally mean that their exact words have been quoted. In this case, you changed LuckyR's words, not quoted them.

Does that clarify matters?

You, my friend have the patience of Job.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Now it is clear.

Then my work here is done.