- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by gr8dad
- Jan 24, 2007, 05:27 AMWow! Nonombre sure dodged all of Cesiums questions in a hurry on Aug. 7th. Anyone notice that the only two people that really have a problem with this site are two people that have vested interest in the polygraph and the importance for the lies about it to continue? Tell me this nonombre. Why is it that almost all the psychology journals and science journals I read and psychologists and psychology professors I speak to tell me the same thing? They have no reason to lie. They have no vested interest either way. They simply report what their SCIENTIFIC tests result indicate. I am yet to find one that agrees that the polygraph has even one stitch of validity. It is inadmissable in court for a reason. Tell me this. If a person fails a polygraph in a criminal case, why does the detective need a confession to confirm that the test is accurate? Heck, why do they even need a judge, jury or evidence. The way you talk, the polygraph is sufficient to replace all of them. Look up the term psuedo-science and compare its characteristics to the polygraph. They are a match made in heaven! I am a survivor of a criminal false positive result from a polygraph. Fortunately, I was able to stand strong through the several hours of a lazy detective trying to get me to confess to something I did not do. I was also able to collect more than enough evidence to prove my innocence. So, dont try to tell me that your machine works! You are a liar! I know FIRST HAND that it DOES NOT and I will do whatever it takes to make sure that everyone I meet will never fall for your lies!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 08, 2006, 04:52 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 05, 2006, 11:21 PM
Mr. Maschke,
Look what you have done. You definatively announce that a question about DUI on a polygraph exam is a control question (and should therefore be manipulated in some way.) Yet when challenged, you defend yourself by saying: ..."I find it hard to believe...it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving."
Mr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here. You risk careers and futures by the "information" you so confidently provide (e.g., the identification of a test question by one type or another). You then defend your "information" with purely subjective assertions such as ..."I find it hard to believe?"
Nonombre,
I am keenly aware (having experienced it first hand) that people's lives may be significantly changed based on the result of the fraudulent procedure that is polygraph screening. That's why this website exists.
You make a good point: the fact that using a relevant question about driving while under the influence as a relevant question, even as federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI are using the same question as a probable-lie "control" question, is pretty stupid doesn't necessarily mean that a local law enforcement agency such as yours wouldn't do it.
For example, even the LAPD until recently used so vague a question as, "Based on your personal bias, have you ever committed a negative act against anyone?" as a relevant question. That's pretty stupid, but they did it.
So yes, I agree that it is possible that a question generally used as a probable-lie "control" question might nonetheless be used by some agencies as a relevant question.
QuoteWhere is YOUR "double blind" study, Mr. Maschke?
The double-blind method is appropriate to studies of such questions as whether a test for deception works or not. But you wouldn't do a double-blind study to learn about polygraph formats themselves: instead, you would go to the polygraph literature, which is what we've done. For example, we know that the FBI uses a question about driving while under the influence of alcohol as a probable-lie "control" question because while we have reports from numerous applicants that this question is being asked, we also know that it is not one of the relevant questions included in DoDPI's "Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test," the format used by all federal law enforcement agencies that rely on pre-employment polygraph screening.
QuoteI will tell you again, my department and many others want to make sure that we don't hire people who like to drive drunk. DUI (of the "not caught" variety) is a routenely asked relevant question.
Perhaps, but let's be candid: as a polygrapher, you have an obvious motive to lie. Although I'm not accusing you of deception, any documentation of your above claim would be welcome.
QuoteHowever, if you are so sure the question is indeed a control, then feel free to keep identifying it as such. Myself and other the other police police examiners will continue to clean up your mess. We have for some time.
Examples?
QuoteSorry sir, you know I am not going to provide you with examples of question types.
Since you're an anonymous examiner with an anonymous department, why not?
QuoteHowever, I will ask you again for the sake of people reading this site and taking for "gospel" the things you say. PLEASE double check everything. You have been wrong a lot lately.
Documentation, please?
QuoteMr. Maschke, whether you care to believe it or not, you have hurt the unsuspecting with your arrogant assertions and the opinions you present as unmitigated fact. I ask you again to check your sources, look at both sides, and consider all possibilities before you advise the naive to engage in behaviors for which you have to date refused to take responsibility for...
Regards,
Nonombre
Again, if you see anything posted here by me (or anyone else) that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, please feel free to point it out and to explain it. If there's something you'd rather not post publicly, feel free also to send me a private message through this board, or to give me a call via Skype, etc.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 08, 2006, 02:33 AMDear Nonombre,
I have been vocal many years ago that the use of the polygraph in federal quarters is increasing instead of decreasing. My observation of the matter does not relate to the validity of the polygraph as much as the abdication of responsibility of federal managers and agencies. No individual wants to be responsible for a bad hiring decision. Let the "Polygraph" operators be responsible for decisions on security risk if they go bad. The "5 to 10%" false positives are the calculated risk that are acceptable.
The false positives are having an effect on the finished product. The system can afford it for now but I have the opinion that it cannot be sustained for more than three more years. I will be around to see if you or I am correct in our observations.
Regards.
I have been vocal many years ago that the use of the polygraph in federal quarters is increasing instead of decreasing. My observation of the matter does not relate to the validity of the polygraph as much as the abdication of responsibility of federal managers and agencies. No individual wants to be responsible for a bad hiring decision. Let the "Polygraph" operators be responsible for decisions on security risk if they go bad. The "5 to 10%" false positives are the calculated risk that are acceptable.
The false positives are having an effect on the finished product. The system can afford it for now but I have the opinion that it cannot be sustained for more than three more years. I will be around to see if you or I am correct in our observations.
Regards.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 07, 2006, 09:34 PMQuote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Aug 07, 2006, 05:56 PM
The emperor is buck naked, and has been for years.
Oh, how it must frustrate you that since the initiation of a website dedicated to the demise of polygraph, PDD testing in federal, state, and local government has instead grown by leaps and bounds...
Keep publishing guys, you are great for business...
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by G Scalabr
- Aug 07, 2006, 05:56 PMQuoteI will tell you again, my department and many others want to make sure that we don't hire people who like to drive drunk. DUI (of the "not caught" variety) is a routinely asked relevant question. However, if you are so sure the question is indeed a control, then feel free to keep identifying it as such.
Nonombre, if what you say is true, your statement does nothing more than underscore what a truly unstandardized farce polygraphy is.
It is fact that many agencies including the FBI consider it an axiom that everyone who admits to driving at some point in his life and drinking alcohol at some point in his life has driven under the influence of alcohol (or at least has doubts he can make a truthful denial to this question). Thus, this is used as a "control" question, for comparing other questions to.
Now, you tell us that you are using this question--one that has been used by agencies like the FBI as a control question for years--the very same question as a relevant question? You do nothing other than help prove that polygraphy is an unstandardized fraud with assertions like this.
Perhaps we should leave it to readers of this thread can decide for themselves what we are dealing with—a standardized, scientific "test" (albeit an imperfect one), or a complete and total fraud.
I think I know what disinterested parties will conclude here—especially in light of things like a luminary who is lionized in the polygraph community being outed as a fake Ph. D. who received his "degree" from a diploma mill shut down by the federal government.
The emperor is buck naked, and has been for years.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Aug 07, 2006, 05:35 PMQuote from: retcopper on Aug 07, 2006, 05:25 PMGeorge:
Correct me if I am wrong but didnt you at one time write that you agreed that some people come here because they are guilty of a crime and think they can get information to help them mislead their polygrapher. I think that many of those peole come here for that reason so why should any polygrapher post any information that would make our job a little more difficult?
Just becaue You think that DUI questions are a waste of time doesnt make it so. When I see misinformation posted here about "how to beat the test" I just smile and read on.
Retcopper,
The fact that the information posted on this website is a double edged sword is unfortunate but neccessary. It works the same way with a gun. Just because you own a weapon, doesn't mean your going out and commit a crime with it. The same goes for being knowlegeable about polygraphs. But all the while knowing that the information does have both benevolent and malevolent usages. I agree with a down side that unsavory and possible criminal intent is the reason some would come to this website. But the vast majority I firmly believe are those wronged by the polygraph and its unethical and immoral use. And these folks once knowlegeable will never fall for its use again. And the numbers grow bigger everyday on who comes to this website.
Regards ....
Posted by retcopper
- Aug 07, 2006, 05:25 PMGeorge:
Correct me if I am wrong but didnt you at one time write that you agreed that some people come here because they are guilty of a crime and think they can get information to help them mislead their polygrapher. I think that many of those peole come here for that reason so why should any polygrapher post any information that would make our job a little more difficult?
Just becaue You think that DUI questions are a waste of time doesnt make it so. When I see misinformation posted here about "how to beat the test" I just smile and read on.
Correct me if I am wrong but didnt you at one time write that you agreed that some people come here because they are guilty of a crime and think they can get information to help them mislead their polygrapher. I think that many of those peole come here for that reason so why should any polygrapher post any information that would make our job a little more difficult?
Just becaue You think that DUI questions are a waste of time doesnt make it so. When I see misinformation posted here about "how to beat the test" I just smile and read on.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Aug 06, 2006, 09:28 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 05, 2006, 11:21 PMMr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here.Nonombre,
I have to say, that is an odd thing for you to write, since it implies that George is not treating people's futures with sufficient gravity.
Very recently you characterized your own behavior for times when an applicant fails his polygraph and you don't know why as this: You fail him anyway, despite your own admission that you can't read minds and don't have the faintest idea why he is showing a response. Your justification for such behavior was twofold: even though you have no idea why he is showing a reaction you assume he knows and is attempting to conceal guilty knowledge, and there are other people in line behind him.
That is, in my opinion, a recklessly cavalier attitude to have with people's lives, which is why I characterized it as unethical, to which you took some exception. But I see it as you being slavishly devoted to the polygraph regardless of truth or fairness. When you have no problem disqualifying an applicant even when you have no idea if he is telling the truth or being deceptive, and you justify it by implying (with what must be nothing more than a wild-ass guess, since you've already admitted you have no idea why he is showing a response) that he's probably lying anyway, but even if he isn't it doesn't matter because there are more where he came from, that is clearly an example of sacrificing ethics for expediency.
George is trying to help people. Exactly what are you doing when you disqualify applicants even when you have no idea if they are telling the truth or being deceptive on their polygraph exam?
Posted by cesium_133
- Aug 06, 2006, 06:48 AMQuoteI can tell you that DUI is a RELEVANT question on the pre-employment polygraph examination that I administer.
Well, sure, you can tell us that. You can tell us that the sky is green on a clear day and that the moon is made of limburger. But we're not obliged to believe you. By the way, what agency do you work for?
QuoteIn the past several months, I have seen you and others on this site wrongly identify relevants as controls, controls as relevants, irrelevants as relevants, etc, etc, etc. I can assure you that on several occasions you and the others have in fact advised readers to augment their reactions to RELEVANT QUESTIONS...
I want examples, too. I was one of the ones identifying questions as this type or that. I have never misidentified an IQ as an RQ or CQ, I know an RQ when I see one, and I state my CQ knowledge as best I can. I don't think I have missed one. If so, for the sake of a clearer debate, nonombre, you should be happy (you don't have anything to hide, do you? Is there anything you would like to clear up? There must be...
) to enlighten me. Also, to all who read this, if you have to ask yourself if it's a CQ or RQ, treat it as an RQ. Please. Don't spike an RQ.Quote...because YOU, Mr. Maschke did not have a clue what you were talking about...
Sounds like something Gelb would say. Or perhaps someone in the APA hierarchy. An ancient way of deflecting the veracity of an argument is to cease honest debate and assail the messenger. It's called an ad hominem attack. Presidential candidates, Marc Antony, and polygraphers seem to use this device frequently. Sorry, I don't accept the maneuver as legitimate debate. Again, perhaps you can give us some examples?
QuoteIn summary, PLEASE double check your facts before handing out dime store advice. You don't know as much as you think you do...
I don't think George's facts are in doubt. I believe him. I associate myself with his remarks. It's not dime-store, nonombre. And he may know more than what he thinks.
I'll tell you this, too: I have taken polys, and I have used CM's, and I have assured my passing through their usage. I should have passed anyhow, and probably would have, but I slam-dunked passage by using them, copiously and unapologetically. Now, if your machine can divine my truthfulness, and at such high rates, those last two sentences should mean nothing to you.
Do they matter at all to you, nonombre? Are you bemused, concerned, angry, or apathetic to what I just said?
QuoteMr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here.
Yes. So if a DWI makes a difference, do a background check. Do the legwork. Do the research. Don't rely on a needle, cursor, and BFB track. Why in God's name would you -ever- trust a subjective practice over objective reality? Alice In Wonderland comes to mind.
QuoteYou risk careers and futures by the "information" you so confidently provide (e.g., the identification of a test question by one type or another). You then defend your "information" with purely subjective assertions such as ..."I find it hard to believe?"
More ad hominem tactics. Sorry, had to identify it; it's embarrassing how obvious it is. And I have yet to hear a reason as to why your department would ask an RQ about something you could call up the local PD and find out (or go to NCIC).
QuoteWhere is YOUR "double blind" study, Mr. Maschke?
I find it impossible to believe, myself. This whole argument I would be laughing at if it were not so serious. Nonombre, we, I myself, am laying all my points out. I hold nothing back (truth).
Now, in a polygraphic setting, you want us to tell you everything, bare our souls to you. It's not too much for this board to ask you to do the same. Why not come clean, tell me, us, everything about you and the magic box?
Whom, I ask again, do you work for?
What questions did this site, perhaps I myself, misidentify?
What material advice did this site, or I myself, get wrong?
Come on, big fella, clear everything up that you're holding back, share it with us, and by the way we -know- you're holding stuff back
We're here to help you, here to go to bat for you, to work with you, not against you. We want you to understand our points. We need you to agree with us. 
Sound familiar? Sounds and smells like canned sardines gone out of date to me, but...The difference between my saying that half-comically (I do believe you are misrepresenting yourself, such as your inner beliefs on how well the poly works, and I think you're discussing this in bad faith by not addressing the arguments presented to you) and you saying it "seriously" is that this site is here for honest discussion and full disclosure. Knowledge is power, and the truth will set all of us free. So why not dissect every part of the magic box? Of what are you -really- afraid? Lost paychecks?
QuoteSorry sir, you know I am not going to provide you with examples of question types.
You don't need to, nonombre. I think George and the rest of us have them committed to memory by now.
QuoteHowever, I will ask you again for the sake of people reading this site and taking for "gospel" the things you say. PLEASE double check everything. You have been wrong a lot lately.
I have posted my opinions, too, nonombre, and I know that the world can see them. I consider this issue very important, as I have to deal with the poly when I feel I should not (nor should anyone). My statements are from my heart, and I stand by all of them as much as if I were the admin here. Thus, what you say to George, you're saying to me, for he and I seem to agree for the most part.
So I will ask again: what should I double check? Where have I been wrong? I don't believe you or your box, big guy; I live in facts and empirical evidence, not statements of "j'accuse!" I've been wrong? Then give me chapter and verse and let's rap about it. What questions? What statements? You've made the counterpoint, so it's your job to back it up. Will you do so?
QuoteMr. Maschke, whether you care to believe it or not, you have hurt the unsuspecting with your arrogant assertions and the opinions you present as unmitigated fact.
How has he, Eos, how have I done so? Again, I want examples. When I assert to you that Christ is my Saviour, and that I can be redeemed through Him, I will tell you my sources... John 3:16 and Romans 10:9, in the New Testament. If you want to debate Scripture's reliability or accuracy, using factual argument, that's legitimate. Stating that I am a kook for being Christian and leaving it there is personal and of no usage probatively.
Did I mention that I debated in high school? Yep, I did, and you can find that out for yourself (assuming you can find me
) by examining my school records.QuoteI ask you again to check your sources, look at both sides, and consider all possibilities before you advise the naive to engage in behaviors for which you have to date refused to take responsibility for...
I myself have looked at both sides, keeping as open a mind as possible. And I'm just an unsolicited contributor; I haven't made this a personal cause.
Last time, nonombre: what sources do you find fault with, what have I said that is in error? I take full responsibility for what I say, and I am sure every other serious poster does as well. What possibilities? That your machine can finally be shown for what it is? I don't think getting rid of something that failed to catch Aldrich Ames twice, that is admittedly subjective, and that uses unquantifiable measurements in an attempt to get confessions not by the machine per se but by its secondary or tertiary use (or pretended use) is such a bad idea.
The rest of your statements are ad hominem, as before, and I won't use bandwidth on them...
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 05, 2006, 11:21 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2006, 07:19 PM
Personally, I find it hard to believe. An applicant's drunk driving record is easily verified by non-polygraphic means...it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving."
Mr. Maschke,
Look what you have done. You definatively announce that a question about DUI on a polygraph exam is a control question (and should therefore be manipulated in some way.) Yet when challenged, you defend yourself by saying: ..."I find it hard to believe...it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving."
Mr. Maschke, this is people's LIVES here. You risk careers and futures by the "information" you so confidently provide (e.g., the identification of a test question by one type or another). You then defend your "information" with purely subjective assertions such as ..."I find it hard to believe?"
Where is YOUR "double blind" study, Mr. Maschke?
I will tell you again, my department and many others want to make sure that we don't hire people who like to drive drunk. DUI (of the "not caught" variety) is a routenely asked relevant question. However, if you are so sure the question is indeed a control, then feel free to keep identifying it as such. Myself and other the other police police examiners will continue to clean up your mess. We have for some time.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2006, 07:19 PM
Examples please.
Sorry sir, you know I am not going to provide you with examples of question types. However, I will ask you again for the sake of people reading this site and taking for "gospel" the things you say. PLEASE double check everything. You have been wrong a lot lately.
Mr. Maschke, whether you care to believe it or not, you have hurt the unsuspecting with your arrogant assertions and the opinions you present as unmitigated fact. I ask you again to check your sources, look at both sides, and consider all possibilities before you advise the naive to engage in behaviors for which you have to date refused to take responsibility for...
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 05, 2006, 07:19 PMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 05, 2006, 05:35 PMI don't know what the FBI does, since I have never been associated with the FBI.
Of course you don't.
QuoteI can tell you that DUI is a RELEVANT question on the pre-employment polygraph examination that I administer.
You can indeed tell me that, but you and your department remain anonymous, and your assertion thus remains unverifiable. Personally, I find it hard to believe. An applicant's drunk driving record is easily verified by non-polygraphic means. From the perspective of an agency that relies on polygraph screening, it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving.
QuoteTherefore, the best thing an examinee can do is resolve this issue with me before the test is administered. Otherwise, he stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing the polygraph examination for my department.
This might be true if polygraphy were a valid method of lie detection, but it isn't.
QuoteThis leads to bring up an issue I have remained fairly quiet about. In the past several months, I have seen you and others on this site wrongly identify relevants as controls, controls as relevants, irrelevants as relevants, etc, etc, etc. I can assure you that on several occasions you and the others have in fact advised readers to augment their reactions to RELEVANT QUESTIONS, because YOU, Mr. Maschke did not have a clue what you were talking about...
Examples please.
QuoteIn summary, PLEASE double check your facts before handing out dime store advice. You don't know as much as you think you do...
I certainly don't claim to have a monopoly on knowledge. If you think I've written anything that is in error, please explain.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 05, 2006, 05:35 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 05, 2006, 02:53 PM
The FBI and other federal agencies use a question about driving under the influence of alcohol as a probable-lie control question! They simplistically assume that everyone who has a driver license and consumes alcoholic beverages has driven while under the influence, or at least has considerable doubt about it. Thus, showing a strong reaction to a question about DUI actually benefits the examinee.
Mr. Maschke,
I don't know what the FBI does, since I have never been associated with the FBI. I can tell you that DUI is a RELEVANT question on the pre-employment polygraph examination that I administer. Therefore, the best thing an examinee can do is resolve this issue with me before the test is administered. Otherwise, he stands a snowball's chance in hell of passing the polygraph examination for my department.
This leads to bring up an issue I have remained fairly quiet about. In the past several months, I have seen you and others on this site wrongly identify relevants as controls, controls as relevants, irrelevants as relevants, etc, etc, etc. I can assure you that on several occasions you and the others have in fact advised readers to augment their reactions to RELEVANT QUESTIONS, because YOU, Mr. Maschke did not have a clue what you were talking about...
In summary, PLEASE double check your facts before handing out dime store advice. You don't know as much as you think you do...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 05, 2006, 02:53 PMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 05, 2006, 12:13 PM
Cesium,
In my experience, any of the conditions you imply above will cause a consistant and significant reaction on a pre-employment polygraph examination.
Nonsense! You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're not conducting double-blind experiments when you conduct polygraph examinations and you are in no position to make such a judgment as you do here.
QuoteHowever, depending on individual department policy, one or more of these scenerios may or may not be cause for disqualification. This situation is further complicated by the fact that not every department makes public its policies in this regard.
So now what do you do if identified as deceptive to this question? You KNOW why you failed. Do you tell the examiner what the problem is and let him work with you to get you through the process? Or do you clam up and thereby seal your fate?
Now you can argue all the day that polygraph is so "terrible" and "evil," but what advice do you have for the guy who's <.08 two years ago is probably not disqualifying, But is bothering him enough during a pre-employment polygraph exam to keep him from passing?
Just wondering...
Nonombre
More nonsense. The FBI and other federal agencies use a question about driving under the influence of alcohol as a probable-lie control question! They simplistically assume that everyone who has a driver license and consumes alcoholic beverages has driven while under the influence, or at least has considerable doubt about it. Thus, showing a strong reaction to a question about DUI actually benefits the examinee.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 05, 2006, 12:13 PMQuote from: cesium_133 on Aug 05, 2006, 05:41 AM
Have you ever driven drunk? No, never been caught, so legally, that's the truth, if I need to go that route... or if I have...
No, because I was not actually drunk; I blew .09, was arrested, convicted, and fined, but was still fully in control of my faculties. I was legally DWI, but factually still perfectly sober and capable of driving.
For the record, I have driven while I was >.08, I think, but have no DWI convictions. So I suppose I can just read into what the polyman is implying (just as he tries to read me) either way and go with whichever.
Cesium,
In my experience, any of the conditions you imply above will cause a consistant and significant reaction on a pre-employment polygraph examination. However, depending on individual department policy, one or more of these scenerios may or may not be cause for disqualification. This situation is further complicated by the fact that not every department makes public its policies in this regard.
So now what do you do if identified as deceptive to this question? You KNOW why you failed. Do you tell the examiner what the problem is and let him work with you to get you through the process? Or do you clam up and thereby seal your fate?
Now you can argue all the day that polygraph is so "terrible" and "evil," but what advice do you have for the guy who's <.08 two years ago is probably not disqualifying, But is bothering him enough during a pre-employment polygraph exam to keep him from passing?
Just wondering...
Nonombre
Posted by cesium_133
- Aug 05, 2006, 05:41 AMYou don't have to lie to pass a ploy, er poly (darn typos). That's our argument in a nutshell. Polymen want you to believe that their box works? Okay, fine. If they say it can detect lies, then what difference does it make if I try to prove the binomial theorem by using Pascal's Triangle during control questions? Obviously, if you believe the polyman, the machine factors this in, and thus it does not matter. Right?
Of course not. Argument thread:
Blowing the whistle on something inherently dishonest is an act of virtue, not vice. That's what George is doing here. I would suspect that he would not have a problem with a device or process that could divine the truth 100% of the time. I wouldn't, as long as it was used in an ethical manner.
The end, no matter how just, never justifies the means. That's Stalinism. It is worse to perpetuate a lie and finger an innocent person thereby, even whilst catching ten guilty, than to let the ten guilty go (paraphrasing from Thomas Jefferson there- see, I quote my sources)
A government that will knowingly lie and use lies and artifices, even in the quest of effecting a "nobler purpose", is a government of lies and deceit, not of laws and ethics. A lie to a deceitful government or government organ, or agent of said government, is at worst greatly tempered in its wrongness. At best, it is noble.
Thus, while I still advocate taking the higher ground and not lying, I have no problem with bending the truth short of a lie if faced with a poly...
Have you ever driven drunk? No, never been caught, so legally, that's the truth, if I need to go that route... or if I have...
No, because I was not actually drunk; I blew .09, was arrested, convicted, and fined, but was still fully in control of my faculties. I was legally DWI, but factually still perfectly sober and capable of driving.
For the record, I have driven while I was >.08, I think, but have no DWI convictions. So I suppose I can just read into what the polyman is implying (just as he tries to read me) either way and go with whichever.
So what is the truth?
Given what this government does and is capable of, I don't have much compunction about walking right up to the line without crossing it...
Of course not. Argument thread:
Blowing the whistle on something inherently dishonest is an act of virtue, not vice. That's what George is doing here. I would suspect that he would not have a problem with a device or process that could divine the truth 100% of the time. I wouldn't, as long as it was used in an ethical manner.
The end, no matter how just, never justifies the means. That's Stalinism. It is worse to perpetuate a lie and finger an innocent person thereby, even whilst catching ten guilty, than to let the ten guilty go (paraphrasing from Thomas Jefferson there- see, I quote my sources)
A government that will knowingly lie and use lies and artifices, even in the quest of effecting a "nobler purpose", is a government of lies and deceit, not of laws and ethics. A lie to a deceitful government or government organ, or agent of said government, is at worst greatly tempered in its wrongness. At best, it is noble.
Thus, while I still advocate taking the higher ground and not lying, I have no problem with bending the truth short of a lie if faced with a poly...
Have you ever driven drunk? No, never been caught, so legally, that's the truth, if I need to go that route... or if I have...
No, because I was not actually drunk; I blew .09, was arrested, convicted, and fined, but was still fully in control of my faculties. I was legally DWI, but factually still perfectly sober and capable of driving.
For the record, I have driven while I was >.08, I think, but have no DWI convictions. So I suppose I can just read into what the polyman is implying (just as he tries to read me) either way and go with whichever.
So what is the truth?
Given what this government does and is capable of, I don't have much compunction about walking right up to the line without crossing it...