Talk:Half-truths
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
reversed redirect to deception as the deception article itself contains a link to this article. --Dave 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed irrelevant material. The cited reference did not concern subject matter, but fleetingly referred to it:
1980s Caesar Squitti (HBComm’80) writes that he “began research in 1987 into various philosophical paradigms and discovered a negative side to truths; anti-truths. The discovery expands the definitions of three concepts ‘half-truths,’ ‘lies,’ and ‘truth,’ while creating a new philosophy, ‘thinking in color.’ The discovery suggests that the biblical story concerning the ‘original sin’ may indeed be true.”
This reference may be relevant to an article about anti-truths, but it does not add anything to an article about half-truths. --Dave 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Colors of Truth
Let me try to explain the correlation betweeen Truth and thinking in color, or colour, or colo(u)rs.
A half-truth, in a specific sense, is a truth, distinct, yet different from other absolute/relative minor truths (half-truths).
If we draw an analogy between LIGHT, colorless full spectrum LIGHT as The Truth, a color is a part of this, a refracted half-truth.
My suggestion is that we also introduce the term, part-of-the-truth, or anti-truth to more directly paint the picture of a half-truth, not a half-truth that is partly true, but a half-truth that is a truth, but not all the truth. --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to write an article about thinking in colour, go ahead and start one. If you want to use the article on half-truth to draw attention to your own theory, please expect me cut such content on the grounds of WP:OR. Also, linking in material that does not maintain context, such as"It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil", will probably be reversed as an obvious attempt to inappropriately introduce a religious point of view (WP:NPOV. Can I suggest you search the web for material that supports your text before editing the article. A good test is to try to find something written by someone other than yourself that supports the assertion. If you can't do that it is more than likely the material will fail the " no original research" test. --Dave 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I hope this works, if not please advise as to suggestion. Thanks Jesus Christ or Truth
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question about time
Here is another example given to me:
Half-truth can be a word.
For example: quarter ? Quarter usually represents 25 out of 100.
Then why is a quarter after 3, 15 minutes after 3 ?
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- A quarter does not "usually" represent 25 out of 100, but 1/4 of whatever number. Like 15 is a quarter of 60. Or 20 is a quarter of 80. Or 2.142 is a quarter of 8.568. It is not a half-truth, just a common understanding of the word. There is nothing remotely false about the statement "it's quarter after 3" (if it's really is 3:15). IronChris | (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct and that is the point I am making....the term 'a quarter' can be either 25 or 15 depending on the frame of reference....
Thanks for the observation, I did not realize this until someone mentioned it to me...
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question about part of a paragraph
Deos the current definition include a statement that is part of a paragraph. The statement ignores of the sentences.
Example: This statement is used to promote war. "no greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for his fellow man......(a few sentences later)...Love oneanother."
So by taking that sentence and eaving out the one about 'loveanother', the statement can be used to manipulate war...
"Lay down your life..." is not suppose to mean a physical death, but merely an abstract lay down...give it up for mankind as in servitude...
HOpe someone may use this to improve the definition...
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Half-truth can be a word.
[edit] Violence and abuse.
There are two classic half-truths that began the revolution into the definition of truth.
"Child abuse: Men who abuse, women and children victims."
While men, women and children are all noted, the model is very polaraizing.
A more correct model of child abuse should be, "Some people who abuse children,( ie some men, some women and some children) including systems and children who abuse themselves" ?
"Spousal Abuse: Stop violence against women"
The real issue is abuse, not violence. In that realm of half-truth logic, silence can be abusive. The model obviously ignores the abuse of men, and promotes a biased polarized model of the heterosexual family unit. The model also infers that violence is by men against women, and ignores the reality that 100% of women abused in lesbian relationships is by other lesbian women.
A more correct model would be 'stop abuse period'.
Problem has been that some social agencies have become 'parsitic' financially feeding off of social 'problems', creating an incentive to expand the definition of 'abuse', and manipulating the reality that 'nothing' and no one is perfect.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A "word" with two meanings.
I walk in to a bank and a person looks at me and ask, "are you a nigro?"...
I am thinking this fellow is either out of it or wants to pick a fight.
"Are you a nigro?"
I just ignore him...
"Are you related to the Nigro family ? (ie Mr. and Mrs. Nigro who lived beside me when i was a little boy.)
(I had just come back from a vacation and a little tanned I presumed he was...well it went over my head !!)
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
A word that sounds the same as another but with a different meaning.
Example:
I go to Church to prey. I go to Church to pray.
The problem here is the difference between written form and the verbal form of communication.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A literal half of a truth.
An observation.
A lawyer, (Sutherland) informed me that under the second law of justice, 'people should be treated equally if they are equal, and they should be treated unequally if they are unequal'.
There is a logical element of fairness, and discrimination in this law.
Problem is that someone has corrupted this law, by corrupting a well known phrase. It is like someone changing a part of wikipedia and getting away with it.
The statement is as follows:
We are all equal before God. We are all equal before the Law.
Both statement include an element of logic and inference in that we are judged according to our merits, or related truths.
These two statments are corrupted to a literal half-truth.
Ie. "We are all equal'. Which is false.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
