Hi. Welcome to the blog for my IB English B class at Jur Hronec High School in Bratislava, Slovakia. Below you will find links to other websites and discussion questions. My students are required to comment on one of these postings every month and also respond to each other's comments. Feel free to add your two bits, but be aware that all comments are monitored before being posted.
Do you agree with this author’s definition of lying?How can politicians best be held accountable
for their lies?Would a law against
lying in Parliament work?
I agree with this article because I think that implementation of law with intention to punish MPs for telling lies would be contraproductive. Despite it might be great to know “the lying rate“ of many polititians it would be difficult to find somebody or found an institution which would independently and objectively decide what is and what is not a lie.
One of the reasons for this is that MPs often discuss topics where there are more points of view and each side may have completely opposite statement. It is almost impossible to determine who says “truth“ in these cases as both sides may have relevant arguments. The very problem results from the fact that the way we decide depends on our decision which of the arguments are more significant. Consequently, the institution in better case would not make a judgement or it would be based on their preferences.
Moreover, as stated in the article, lying is sometimes even in parliament essential (for society or state). Therefore, it would be necessary to regulate the activity of the controlling institution. But again there would be required somebody who would say when politicians may and when they may not lie. Basically, the whole system would rely on this person. He/she would have power to limit the controlling institution, so they would not punish some MPs but the whole rest, which can be easily misused.
All in all, the idea of punishing politicians for their lies in parliament is difficult to realise. The reasons for this vary from inability to differentiate lie and truth to occasional necessity to tell lies as a result of state strategy. But still there is press to help us see the reality from more perspectives, so we can distinguish which politician lies when it is not wanted. And the punishment is done by not voting the person in elections.
First of all, I should say that I like that Juro tried to come up with a possible solution to the whole problem of lying in Parliament. If I understood it well, he proposes to establish a controlling institution which would objectively judge, whether the MPs are or are not telling the truth. Furthermore, according to Juro, an occupation of the Head of the controlling panel (or the CEO, as we can call it from now on) should be instituted. The CEO would be ultimately responsible for the verdicts and punishments that the controlling institution delivers. However, there are some unresolved issues in his solution and I would like to comment on them.
Firstly, the idea of an institution that controls the lying rate in the Parliament is appreciable, however I don't see how it could appropriately function in reality. Today's technologies are not developed enough to objectively evaluate whether the statements proposed by a person are true or false. Moreover, as the article stated, there are situations in which lying can and should be viewed as acceptable. And these situations may also occur in the Parliament. Thus, even if the technologies were advanced enough to recognize the false information from the truthful ones they would still be far from being able to estimate whether the lies are tolerable or not.
Secondly, the correct functioning of the institution of the CEO (which I view similarly as the occupation of the chief judge in the court) seems unaccomplishable. First of all, it is unattainable for the sole presence of human error. Just as in the courts nowadays, there would never be a full certainity that the decisions of the CEO are completely objective and faultless. Furthermore, especially in the countries as corrupted as Slovakia, I view the occupation of the CEO as extremely exploitable. The CEO could be bribed and used by politicians and political parties for getting rid of the undesirable opposition.
Thus, in conclusion, I agree with Juro's premise that lying in Parliament is a huge issue of today's political system. However I don't think that his solution is sufficient and moreover I don't see any adequate solution rising up in the near future.
I have to say that I disagree with Juraj’s opinion on this topic. I understand what he wanted to say in the second paragraph, but I do not think this is the case that the article was about. It is natural that different people have different opinions, and no one can force someone to change his opinion, but I do not think that this is the case of lying. In my opinion, the article was about MPs concealing the important information and facts in parliament and telling a lie publicly to people. As any other people in their job are not allowed to tell lies or not allowed to lie to a policeman, I do not see a reason why MPs should be omitted from this rule. For some people it is a moral principle not to tell lies, but we all know that a lot of politicians do not find it that inappropriate and do it regularly. And should we let them do it, when we know they are lying? They are the people that represent our state and decide on all the people in our country, so they should be the best example for everyone.
But of course, we cannot live in idealized world and expect all of them to have deep moral values, because people do what is the best for them. We have to control the people, who are responsible for our finances, laws, future, not just by elections, which take place every 4 years, but also in other ways. I agree with Jurko that it would be very difficult to find out who is telling lies and punish him, but if we do not do it, they will lie even more and more. Sometimes it is really not hard to say that a MP is lying, and for more complicated cases, there should be a committee that will investigate these cases and give the politicians sanctions. However, I do not think that putting people to jail is a solution for lying, but as Katka said, a fine is an appropriate solution. I also think that when the case of serious lying is repeated, the member should be discharged.
Firstly, to be honest, is there anybody in the whole world, who would never tell a lie? We lie even about small things, such as where we are when our parents ask; in the case you know they would be mad or angry, it is necessary to prevent argument. As the author writes, it is not always bad thing to lie, under the circumstances that it will keep peace in the family or community. Or imagine situation that a person who seems to be suspicious or dangerous asked you where you live, would you tell him/her the truth? I do not think so. Secondly, as was written in the article, if MPs say stupid things they can be thrown out at the following election. However, here in Slovakia, it would in 4 years time. And imagine how many bad things can be caused by a person who was elected. Their decisions can influence country’s economy and environment. Although I am a student, I really dislike the idea of free travelling by trains for students and retired people. Slovakia does not have that much money that we could afford something like this. What I dislike the most about lying of MPs is their promising huge changes in the pre-election campaigns, but as soon as people believe them, and they become the MPs, they do nothing of what was promised. The author writes the definition of “a lie”, and I agree. The lies manipulate others and mislead them. Lying can have a huge importance in the parliament; however I cannot see a way how to prevent the MPs from not telling the truth. Even though the author suggests sanctions or being taken to the jail, I do not think it would work. As for the sanctions, they have so much money that they would not care if they have to pay for lies. Moreover, how would MPs be able to say if it was a lie or truth if the “lying one” gave argument why it should be the way he said. As for being arrested, it would have a bad effect on the whole country and how would the world countries see us, since MPs represent us. It would solve nothing. Unless somebody has the evidence or some materials against what is said by some of MPs, there is no way how to prove that the others tell a lie. The only way, I see, how to prevent lies being told in the parliament is to elect people who will not tell lies. However, there is nobody like that. But there might be people who do not lie that much. Yet, it is very hard to tell the person who lies from the one who does not, almost impossible. Nevertheless, I hope the mentality of the world will change once, and people will not lie as much as now.
Although not many people want to admit it, lying is inevitable part of life. It is not right but we cannot keep from doing it. In some cases, it is acceptable. For example, saying that everything is going to be okay to the badly injured person to comfort him a bit. On the other hand, I do not think that lying in the parliament should be accepted. It has already caused much harm and it should be somehow prevented. MPs are here to take care of the people and they should be trusted but in order to be really trusted they cannot lie or omit any important information for their own sake. In my opinion, lying in the parliament should have similar consequences as the lying in the court of law where it is considered undesirable. The penalties for perjury differ in every country. In few countries, the punishment for the perjury carries a possible prison sentence but in the others, the prosecutions for perjury are somewhat rare. In my opinion, it is useless to arrest the MPs for lying but there should be definitely some sanctions, at least the high fines for lying (without parliamentary privilege that could protect MPs in that situation).
The article stated that the necessity of not telling the truth always depends on the particular circumstances. I have to agree that telling clear truth about matters of national security being at stake is not the best idea but in case the minister would be asked, he could say that he is not allowed to talk about it or so… (Simply something that is not a lie.) Moreover, lying in order to get rid of the serious opposition is undesirable. When there is some opposition (and there always is some), it has its legitimate arguments and the matter should be discussed and not solved by manipulating the opponents.
Next problem is that even if we would have exact rules and sanctions for breaking them, how it would be possible to actually find out and prove that the MP is lying? Unfortunately, I do not have any particular solution. In some cases, it is visible when the MP lies. For example, before the elections. Each one of the candidates promises prosperous changes but when he/she gets the position the promises usually do not get to the realization. On the other hand, lying on the conferences that cannot be watched by public is much harder to discover. Nevertheless, even if the MP would be accused, he would probably argue that he did not lie but simply did not tell the truth. But is there any difference between lying and not telling the truth? I do not think so… It is just cheap excuse which the small kids often use. A lie was in the article described as “a deliberate, conscious untruth, the intention of which is to mislead and manipulate.” In my opinion, the definition of untruth is very similar. Simply, in the untruth, there are not included any new made up stories but just the omitted important facts. However, the consequences are the same as if you have lied and the sanctions should be also the same.
I agree with this article because I think that implementation of law with intention to punish MPs for telling lies would be contraproductive. Despite it might be great to know “the lying rate“ of many polititians it would be difficult to find somebody or found an institution which would independently
ReplyDeleteand objectively decide what is and what is not a lie.
One of the reasons for this is that MPs often discuss topics where there are more points of view and each side may have completely opposite statement. It is almost impossible to determine who says “truth“ in these cases as both sides may have relevant arguments. The very problem results from the fact that the way we decide depends on our decision which of the arguments are more significant. Consequently, the institution in better case would not make a judgement or it would be based on their preferences.
Moreover, as stated in the article, lying is sometimes even in parliament essential (for society or state). Therefore, it would be necessary to regulate the activity of the controlling institution. But again there would be required somebody who would say when politicians may and when they may not lie. Basically, the whole system would rely on this person. He/she would have power to limit the controlling institution, so they would not punish some MPs but the whole rest, which can be easily misused.
All in all, the idea of punishing politicians for their lies in parliament is difficult to realise. The reasons for this vary from inability to differentiate lie and truth to occasional necessity to tell lies as a result of state strategy. But still there is press to help us see the reality from more perspectives, so we can distinguish which politician lies when it is not wanted. And the punishment is done by not voting the person in elections.
First of all, I should say that I like that Juro tried to come up with a possible solution to the whole problem of lying in Parliament. If I understood it well, he proposes to establish a controlling institution which would objectively judge, whether the MPs are or are not telling the truth. Furthermore, according to Juro, an occupation of the Head of the controlling panel (or the CEO, as we can call it from now on) should be instituted. The CEO would be ultimately responsible for the verdicts and punishments that the controlling institution delivers. However, there are some unresolved issues in his solution and I would like to comment on them.
DeleteFirstly, the idea of an institution that controls the lying rate in the Parliament is appreciable, however I don't see how it could appropriately function in reality. Today's technologies are not developed enough to objectively evaluate whether the statements proposed by a person are true or false. Moreover, as the article stated, there are situations in which lying can and should be viewed as acceptable. And these situations may also occur in the Parliament. Thus, even if the technologies were advanced enough to recognize the false information from the truthful ones they would still be far from being able to estimate whether the lies are tolerable or not.
Secondly, the correct functioning of the institution of the CEO (which I view similarly as the occupation of the chief judge in the court) seems unaccomplishable. First of all, it is unattainable for the sole presence of human error. Just as in the courts nowadays, there would never be a full certainity that the decisions of the CEO are completely objective and faultless. Furthermore, especially in the countries as corrupted as Slovakia, I view the occupation of the CEO as extremely exploitable. The CEO could be bribed and used by politicians and political parties for getting rid of the undesirable opposition.
Thus, in conclusion, I agree with Juro's premise that lying in Parliament is a huge issue of
today's political system. However I don't think that his solution is sufficient and moreover I don't see any adequate solution rising up in the near future.
From Sona Langova:
DeleteI have to say that I disagree with Juraj’s opinion on this topic. I understand what he wanted to say in the second paragraph, but I do not think this is the case that the article was about. It is natural that different people have different opinions, and no one can force someone to change his opinion, but I do not think that this is the case of lying. In my opinion, the article was about MPs concealing the important information and facts in parliament and telling a lie publicly to people. As any other people in their job are not allowed to tell lies or not allowed to lie to a policeman, I do not see a reason why MPs should be omitted from this rule. For some people it is a moral principle not to tell lies, but we all know that a lot of politicians do not find it that inappropriate and do it regularly. And should we let them do it, when we know they are lying? They are the people that represent our state and decide on all the people in our country, so they should be the best example for everyone.
But of course, we cannot live in idealized world and expect all of them to have deep moral values, because people do what is the best for them. We have to control the people, who are responsible for our finances, laws, future, not just by elections, which take place every 4 years, but also in other ways. I agree with Jurko that it would be very difficult to find out who is telling lies and punish him, but if we do not do it, they will lie even more and more. Sometimes it is really not hard to say that a MP is lying, and for more complicated cases, there should be a committee that will investigate these cases and give the politicians sanctions. However, I do not think that putting people to jail is a solution for lying, but as Katka said, a fine is an appropriate solution. I also think that when the case of serious lying is repeated, the member should be discharged.
Firstly, to be honest, is there anybody in the whole world, who would never tell a lie? We lie even about small things, such as where we are when our parents ask; in the case you know they would be mad or angry, it is necessary to prevent argument. As the author writes, it is not always bad thing to lie, under the circumstances that it will keep peace in the family or community. Or imagine situation that a person who seems to be suspicious or dangerous asked you where you live, would you tell him/her the truth? I do not think so.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as was written in the article, if MPs say stupid things they can be thrown out at the following election. However, here in Slovakia, it would in 4 years time. And imagine how many bad things can be caused by a person who was elected. Their decisions can influence country’s economy and environment. Although I am a student, I really dislike the idea of free travelling by trains for students and retired people. Slovakia does not have that much money that we could afford something like this.
What I dislike the most about lying of MPs is their promising huge changes in the pre-election campaigns, but as soon as people believe them, and they become the MPs, they do nothing of what was promised.
The author writes the definition of “a lie”, and I agree. The lies manipulate others and mislead them. Lying can have a huge importance in the parliament; however I cannot see a way how to prevent the MPs from not telling the truth. Even though the author suggests sanctions or being taken to the jail, I do not think it would work. As for the sanctions, they have so much money that they would not care if they have to pay for lies. Moreover, how would MPs be able to say if it was a lie or truth if the “lying one” gave argument why it should be the way he said. As for being arrested, it would have a bad effect on the whole country and how would the world countries see us, since MPs represent us. It would solve nothing.
Unless somebody has the evidence or some materials against what is said by some of MPs, there is no way how to prove that the others tell a lie. The only way, I see, how to prevent lies being told in the parliament is to elect people who will not tell lies. However, there is nobody like that. But there might be people who do not lie that much. Yet, it is very hard to tell the person who lies from the one who does not, almost impossible. Nevertheless, I hope the mentality of the world will change once, and people will not lie as much as now.
Although not many people want to admit it, lying is inevitable part of life. It is not right but we cannot keep from doing it. In some cases, it is acceptable. For example, saying that everything is going to be okay to the badly injured person to comfort him a bit. On the other hand, I do not think that lying in the parliament should be accepted. It has already caused much harm and it should be somehow prevented. MPs are here to take care of the people and they should be trusted but in order to be really trusted they cannot lie or omit any important information for their own sake. In my opinion, lying in the parliament should have similar consequences as the lying in the court of law where it is considered undesirable. The penalties for perjury differ in every country. In few countries, the punishment for the perjury carries a possible prison sentence but in the others, the prosecutions for perjury are somewhat rare. In my opinion, it is useless to arrest the MPs for lying but there should be definitely some sanctions, at least the high fines for lying (without parliamentary privilege that could protect MPs in that situation).
ReplyDeleteThe article stated that the necessity of not telling the truth always depends on the particular circumstances. I have to agree that telling clear truth about matters of national security being at stake is not the best idea but in case the minister would be asked, he could say that he is not allowed to talk about it or so… (Simply something that is not a lie.) Moreover, lying in order to get rid of the serious opposition is undesirable. When there is some opposition (and there always is some), it has its legitimate arguments and the matter should be discussed and not solved by manipulating the opponents.
Next problem is that even if we would have exact rules and sanctions for breaking them, how it would be possible to actually find out and prove that the MP is lying? Unfortunately, I do not have any particular solution. In some cases, it is visible when the MP lies. For example, before the elections. Each one of the candidates promises prosperous changes but when he/she gets the position the promises usually do not get to the realization. On the other hand, lying on the conferences that cannot be watched by public is much harder to discover. Nevertheless, even if the MP would be accused, he would probably argue that he did not lie but simply did not tell the truth. But is there any difference between lying and not telling the truth? I do not think so… It is just cheap excuse which the small kids often use. A lie was in the article described as “a deliberate, conscious untruth, the intention of which is to mislead and manipulate.” In my opinion, the definition of untruth is very similar. Simply, in the untruth, there are not included any new made up stories but just the omitted important facts. However, the consequences are the same as if you have lied and the sanctions should be also the same.