Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's what you said: > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth. Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be…
> > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. > Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth. Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true. > Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason Yea, the reason b…
The legal definition of lying, and by far the most common one in the everyday world, is that lying requires an intent to deceive and the utterance of a knowing falsehood.
> It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion.
What? By defining "lying" as it is defined in the law and in most references? How so?
> only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote
When I have quoted you, I have done it by cutting and pasting your exact words, as you typed them, directly from the display. How is that twisting your words?
> for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.
It is not "obviously false," it is not false at all. Lying is knowing, intentional falsehood. To lie, one must know that the statement is false.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Quote: "1 : a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
How is that in any way confusing to you?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Quote: "Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)." [emphasis added]
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...
Quote: "When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.
The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction." [emphasis added]
Still confused?