Long Answers

[Hobbs]

Still, at the VERY least, not lying by any rational definition. And I'll just cut out the rest of what I'd typed here, because "reasonable" is not expected of military rules.

Wow, I wonder if you even know what our rules entail. Then again, "reasonable" is not expected of the civilian population when it comes to understanding the military society.

I have already explained that what the cadet was doing was quibbling, which is defined as an evasion of the truth. An evasion of the truth is a lie.

The ones who piss me off are those who make a conscious effort to not give a straight answer or yes or no. I've had teachers trying to act all intellectual by giving bullshit answers or diverting yes or no questions and trying to distract you, usually these people are just a waste of breath.

I hate that too. In fact, that's what the cadet was doing. I probably should have called him out on it, but he's giving me an MFR that I'll send up the chain.

[HYHYBT]

Logically, it is not the same thing. Your rules may well define it as such.

[Hobbs]

Logically, it is not the same thing. Your rules may well define it as such.

Logically, if you follow the line of reasoning, you'll see that I'm correct.

[Greenday]

Logically, it is not the same thing. Your rules may well define it as such.

Purposely avoiding to tell the truth is pretty much a lie.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Purposely avoiding to tell the truth is pretty much a lie.

More to the point, it's a Game. One which I think people resort to to avoid conflict and navigate the hazards of Politically Correct society.

Some folks get to be quite good at avoiding the truth why not technically lieing by things like answering questions exactly as they are asked. Or answering questions in a way that can be interpretted multiple ways (leaving the questioner to read the answer as they want to). Yes/No questions aren't as precise as some folks think they are.

For example: "Are you a traitor?! Yes or No?!" could be read many different ways because it calls for some self-assesment. The person who committed the act might view themselves as a Patriot and answer "No Sir!" and feel they are telling the truth. or "Did you or did you not sabotage the equipment?!" when it was an accident and not intentional. (Sorry this are all sounding like a bad spy movie, but it's just what's coming to mind. Probably because I was watching a James Bond marathon last night before bed.) Again, how you ask a question is just as important and what you are asking. If it's not exactly what you want to know, it if can be read more than one way, then the questioner is actually INVITING the other person to play a game where the reward is avoiding punishment on their part or hurt feelings, or other negative consequences. Lawyers do this all the time, they intentionally ask questions in such a way as to elicit a predicable response and to paint a specific picture to the jury in court either to get a conviction or to absolve their client. Being declared "Not Guilty" isn't exactly the same being innocent. It just means the prosecution couldn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that ya' did it.

I find the really scary part is once you learn to recognize when people are doing this when answering a simple question. When you can recognize when they are avoiding telling you something by appearing completely truthful. Makes a person want to rethinking how they ask their questions.

[ZedOmega]

Christ at a CVS buying crackers, I hate question-dodgers. I wonder what made people think that it was okay to avoid giving a straight yes/no answer by immediately going to an explanation before the question 'why (the hell not)' is even asked. Simple solution: if they jump straight to the 'you see, it's like this' spiel, assume it's the answer you don't want to hear.

[blas87]

I was once told that overly elaborating, unless specifically asked, just makes you look guilty or stupid.

Which is why when I call in sick to work, I just say that I have a cold or the flu, or I have a migrane, whatever. I don't give a whole play by play hour by hour diatrabe of my symptoms and how it's progressed, or if I'm asked if I did something, I say yes or no and if I'm further questioned, only then do I elaborate.

[Sage Blackthorn]

I was once told that overly elaborating, unless specifically asked, just makes you look guilty or stupid.

Which is why when I call in sick to work, I just say that I have a cold or the flu, or I have a migrane, whatever. I don't give a whole play by play hour by hour diatrabe of my symptoms and how it's progressed, or if I'm asked if I did something, I say yes or no and if I'm further questioned, only then do I elaborate.

Calling in sick to work is a bit of a different situation, I think, than what Hobbs was talking about with his Cadets. In a work situation, you usually have a set number of "sick or personal days" per month that you can use without penalty. There is no real need to elaborate beyond "I'm sick, I'm not coming in today."

Now change situations to one in which you are involved in an incident that could result in some unpleasant consequences for you and you feel you were not responsible for some reason. Simply giving a short answer when there were extenuating circumstances that could keep you from said unpleasantness is not going to seem logical (unless yer some sort of masochist who likes punishment). I think it's natural to try and explain what happened.

It's like you've shot a guy who was coming after you, intending to kill you. If the judge asks "Yes or no, did you shoot and kill him?" and you just say "Yes", you get the gas chamber. If you say "Yes sir, but I was in fear for my life as this man is a known psychopath and was coming at me with a large bloody axe and wearing a hocky mask. I felt that I would be killed if I did not defend myself and my family." Huge difference than just "Yes, I shot and killed him." Holding back information you feel is relevant, in some cases, is just plain stupid and even harmful to yourself.

[Hobbs]

It's like you've shot a guy who was coming after you, intending to kill you. If the judge asks "Yes or no, did you shoot and kill him?" and you just say "Yes", you get the gas chamber. If you say "Yes sir, but I was in fear for my life as this man is a known psychopath and was coming at me with a large bloody axe and wearing a hocky mask. I felt that I would be killed if I did not defend myself and my family." Huge difference than just "Yes, I shot and killed him." Holding back information you feel is relevant, in some cases, is just plain stupid and even harmful to yourself.

A judge wouldn't ask a question like that. I'm pretty sure there's a rule against that. Also, you wouldn't be made to testify against yourself because of that pesky thing we call the Bill of Rights.

[DrFaroohk]

A judge wouldn't ask a question like that. I'm pretty sure there's a rule against that. Also, you wouldn't be made to testify against yourself because of that pesky thing we call the Bill of Rights.

Well other than his example being a bit flawed, I think we all know what he meant. Sometimes it just depends on the question, who's asking it and where they want it to go. Anyone in an authoritive position, even if its just emotionally, can trim questions and answers to get what the answer they want.

Sometimes people need to give a long answer because a yes or no doesn't cover it, or because you know that the person asking it has an agenda against you and won't ask the necessary followup questions nor will they allow you to interject.

Here's a slightly better example than the judge one: Imagine your roommate finds a bottle of vicodin in the closet. Here's one way it might play out:

"Are these your drugs?"

YES OR NO ANSWER: "Yes."

"I don't want drugs in here, get out!"

"But -"

"NO BUTS, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE."

"But -"

"I SAID GET OUT OR I WILL KILL YOU!"

OR....

"Are these your drugs?"

"Yeah dude, I had my wisdom teeth out yesterday. Dentist prescribed them for me."

"Oh, ok. I thought you were a junkie! Haha, imagine what a misunderstanding that could've been."

Again, I'm sure someone can pick apart the plot holes in this example, if they really want to be a douchebag, but I'm sure everyone sees what I'm getting at. Sometimes yes or no just doesn't cut it. Sometimes it does. But typically I'm wary of anyone demanding yes or no answers because I figure they're trying to "lawyer" me in some way. Lawyers do that crap. They might not get you to admit that you killed Johnny Larson, but by cutting you off and limiting your answers they can get you to say "Yes, I hated him, because he fucked my wife, and I had private fantasies about wishing him dead" without giving you a chance to say "But I did not, in fact, kill him."

[Hobbs]

if they really want to be a douchebag...

Nice Catch-22. I could tear apart your argument, which is easy, but in doing so, apparently I am a douche-bag. Touche.

I've never had an unreasonable roommate, so I'm not sure how that scenario would play out. Point of fact, if you're given as yes/no question, why go beyond a yes/no answer? What's the harm in just saying "Yes/No."

As for the last part of your statement...you still wouldn't be compelled to testify in a case against yourself. However, if you did take the stand and the prosecutor asked you that, your lawyer can simply redirect and ask, "Did you kill Mr. Larson, though?" To which you would answer, "No." Your lawyer sits down, "No further questions."

[DrFaroohk]

I've never had an unreasonable roommate, so I'm not sure how that scenario would play out. Point of fact, if you're given as yes/no question, why go beyond a yes/no answer? What's the harm in just saying "Yes/No."

Like I said before...most people aren't nearly reasonable enough to listen or even give an opportunity to explain. I rarely get one, so I learned just to throw my whole statement out on the floor immediately to get it out there. If someone chooses to interpret that as being dishonest or lying or just plain lame, that's their problem.

Sometimes yes or no just doesn't cut it. If the whole world was black and white, it would, but it's not, and it doesn't.