What do you believe in?

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

Gravity is pulling you to the lamp next to you, but practically, there is no force between you and the lamp.
I'm not sayin there should be no room for leniency, but if they gave the wrong answer, then in essence, it was a lie.

How? It's false, but they don't think
It's false. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION BEFORE YOU POST.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

Gravity is pulling you to the lamp next to you, but practically, there is no force between you and the lamp.
I'm not sayin there should be no room for leniency, but if they gave the wrong answer, then in essence, it was a lie.

How? It's false, but they don't think
It's false. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION BEFORE YOU POST.

I did.  I pointed out one of the many definitions that lie has, but you refused to acknowledge it.
And i asked if you would prefer us to start calling them mistruths, and you refused to acknowledge it also.

That's not the definition. And yes, I would prefer mistruths.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

That's still part of the first definition, the definition needs to be true for that to take effect.

[Sardok]

From wikipedia:

"A lie is a false statement to a person or a group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

regardless of all of that (i could continue to argue) WHY DOES IT MATTER???  You get our point, why don't you just go "k, that's what they define a lie as" and move on?

BC you're using that as a basis for the rest of your argument

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

We know what we want to punish, we just call it a lie.  What's the big deal if we say "something that isn't true is a lie"?

Because it's wrong and if Piotr decides to punish it's unjust

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

And what part of punishing people who say things that are incorrect is unjust?

What if it's a prediction? They can't control it.

[Piotr]

And you'll see that he'll correct you first, so by either definition, it's still a lie.

Take note, Taysby is quite right here.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

And you'll see that he'll correct you first, so by either definition, it's still a lie.

Take note, Taysby is quite right here.

I honestly don't understand what he's saying. Can you translate?

[Spencer Addington]

And you'll see that he'll correct you first, so by either definition, it's still a lie.

Take note, Taysby is quite right here.

I honestly don't understand what he's saying. Can you translate?

When he informs you that something is a lie, and explains why it is a lie, yet you still continue to spout said lie, you are lying...

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

And you'll see that he'll correct you first, so by either definition, it's still a lie.

Take note, Taysby is quite right here.

I honestly don't understand what he's saying. Can you translate?

When he informs you that something is a lie, and explains why it is a lie, yet you still continue to spout said lie, you are lying...

Not if he was wrong to begin with and it wasn't a lie. In this situation, that is the case- he said it was a lie when it wasn't.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

1). You said something that was incorrect
2). Piotr corrects you
3). You continue to say it

Now it's a lie.  He does that every time.  He not just going to ban you the first time you say something incorrect.

Well, I still think it's true. It's not a lie. And anyways, I proved him wrong with my link. It's a theory until all gravity everywhere has been tested and works with the theory.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-scientific-law-theory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
http://faculty.sdmiramar.edu/fgarces/zCourse/All_Year/Ch100_OL/aMy_FileLec/04OL_LecNotes_Ch100/01_Measurement/101_SciMethod/101_ScientificMethod.pdf  page 6

That is incorrect.  a law is a summary of observed behavior, and a theory trys to explain what happens.  Get your scientific terms right.

A law can't be a law until it's proven everything that it concerns fits the law. The current only way to do that is by checking all of it. A theory is what scientists think is true, but hasn't been fully proven yet the way it has to.

[Demigoron]

http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-scientific-law-theory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
http://faculty.sdmiramar.edu/fgarces/zCourse/All_Year/Ch100_OL/aMy_FileLec/04OL_LecNotes_Ch100/01_Measurement/101_SciMethod/101_ScientificMethod.pdf  page 6

That is incorrect.  a law is a summary of observed behavior, and a theory trys to explain what happens.  Get your scientific terms right.

A law can't be a law until it's proven everything that it concerns fits the law. The current only way to do that is by checking all of it. A theory is what scientists think is true, but hasn't been fully proven yet the way it has to.

sigh

Main Entry:      scientific law
Part of Speech:      n
Definition:      a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law

Main Entry:   theory
Part of Speech:      n
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
via dictionary.com

[Demigoron]

Even though honestly the only practicle difference between a law and a theory is that laws are theories we made before we realised everything gets screwed up whenever you get reletivistic or quantum.  Newton's laws aren't really laws, they are theories that got integrated into joint human knowledge before we realised they break down.