How do you debate with a pathological liar?

[stvdv]

as opposed to a pathological truth sayer?

I actually see little difference
you can't really deal with either one

IMO:

I see a huge difference

Pathological liar is someone who always lies, that's problematic
Pathological truth sayer is someone who always tells the truth; not a problem to me, I love the truth

 

[metis]

Frankly, I don't use the word "liar" as that tends to label the entire person. Thus, how about "profusely lies"?

 

[exchemist]

Yep. You got it right.

Well, it was an open goal.

 

[stvdv]

Frankly, I don't use the word "liar" as that tends to label the entire person. Thus, how about "profusely lies"?

Thank you for that one. Always good to remind ourselves of this fact

 

[firedragon]

Frankly, I don't use the word "liar" as that tends to label the entire person. Thus, how about "profusely lies"?

Its a condition. An addressed as such.

 

[bobhikes]

No, pathological liars don't need to prove that they weren't lying, they just need to lie that they weren't lying.

Again we are talking about a debate. A debate is done to win over a larger portion of the audience. If you can make the point early that your competitor is lying then a large portion of the audience will default your competitor as lying. In any debate there will be people that oppose your point no matter what, The job of the debaters is to convince the undecided. Being labeled a liar in a debate is a liability.

 

[fiveohg]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

Alan watts- I Got rid of my trap in life / get our of trap explained
https://bit.ly/35Fycda

 

[Katzpur]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Easy. You don't. You simply don't allow yourself to be drawn into a debate with such a person. Why would you even want to?

 

[Eddi]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

You expose their lies and establish them as a liar

They then lose credibility

 

[Vee]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? .

I don't. Better turn around and find something else to do.

 

[Fool]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

half truths, or lies, are used to deceive. they are a service to self type, tribalist. the truth isn't as important as the relationship(s)

 

[1213]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?...

I would say, why should I believe you. That is usually enough.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

I once knew a young woman who had such a condition.

I never argued with her. I just loved her instead.

 

[oldbadger]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

Corr... You fibber!
I never did........!!!!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

Having read the debate, After one offers alternate thoughts to consider, I would say leave them to themselves and the Lie they have chosen to live with.

Only so much can be offered.

Maybe you should link the debate. If RF allows that to be so.

Regards Tony

 

[Clara Tea]

QUESTION: Firedragon asked "how do you debate a pathological liar?"

ANSWER:

1. You make the liar the messiah.

2. Instead of getting stoned to death as an adulteress (cuckolded her elderly husband for some cute traveling salesman), you say that God cuckolded him, and that you are carrying the son of God by immaculate inception. Of course, God, who told us not to covet our neighbor's wives, also had to sin to have a baby with a married woman.

3. You claim that, as mother of the Lord, you have no sins.

4. You claim that Jesus walked on water (not on a mirage, or submerged planks).

5. You claim that Jesus rose from the dead, and, as proof, a person who looks nothing like Jesus presents himself as Jesus. Jesus was Jewish, and, back then, Jews had not mixed their DNA with Germans, and were not blond. Rather, they looked like Arabs with dark skin and black curly hair, and Jewish men had a lot of dark body hair. Yet, when Christ rose from the grave, he had long blond hair, red eyes, and feet like bronze.

6. You write a bible, 100 years after the death of Jesus, and assert that all of the prophets are still alive, and all of the prophets got together to write the bible (proof that Jesus really made those statements). One could argue, as liars do, that something might account for the discrepancies (perhaps the bible was written by divine intervention...the hand of God writing the scriptures). On pain of death, it was asserted that the bible (and God) were perfect. If so, why are there so many different religions (volcano Gods in the South Pacific, et al)? Why are there so many versions of the Christian bible (King James Version, etc.)? If they are all right, how can they say different things and be interpreted differently? How can there be contradictions in the divinely inspired perfect bible(s)? For example, Genesis 1:25 and Genesis 2:18 contradict one another on the issue of who was created first....mankind or animals.

7. Jonah lived in the belly of a whale? But that is impossible.

8. The whole world was flooded in Noah's time? We need lying pseudo-scientists to assert these lies.

9. Global Warming is accelerating due to mankind's influence? We need lying politicians to erase scientific data and tell lies to the public so politician's oil mammon continues to flow (love of mammon over God).

10. There were liars to assert that dinosaurs lived less than 6,000 years ago, and that the universe was created by God 6,000 years ago. These are liars, who pretend to have some scientific background, who assert that DNA, carbon dating, and other scientific methods are flawed.

11. There were lying politicians who promised to end abortion, yet, ignored that issue. They wrecked God's environment with fracking, drilling offshore, ignoring solar power alternatives (Reagan removed Carter's solar panels from the White House), and making logging roads through the last vestiges of pristine forests. They made wars (God said thou shalt not kill), and even made war in Iraq (Revelation in the bible says that God would vent his wrath on those who attack Iraq....for example Revelation 15 says God would make 7 plagues (like COVID)). They wreck the economy by outsourcing jobs and factories where products are made with cheap materials and labor (and fall apart quickly). Texas governor, W. Bush, mocked a death row inmate...."please don't kill me.....please don't kill me." W. Bush went on to make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (neither involved in terrorism), and a torture camp in Guantanamo. W. Bush diverted aid to hurricane Katrina victims...many suffered and died due to his apathy.

12. Lying reverends (like Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker) said that they were getting donations for starving Africans, while they absconded with donations from their kind supporters and used the money for their mansion (in their lawyers name so they wouldn't be caught). Tammy Fay Bakker said that she learned her lesson (not to be caught).

 

[halbhh]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

I try not to. And was successful just the other day at that.

Another way to respond at the outset of a discussion when someone tries to blanket/snow you with 10 (made up) points: Just to answer only 1 perfectly and leave.

Another way of thinking about it: you don't have to have a conversation with someone that is trying to talk over you.

 

[nPeace]

Given the situation you come across a pathological liar, how do you debate with him? Especially in a forum?

Lets say you expose one lie, he makes up another lie. Then you expose that, he makes up a new one. And it goes on, yet never ends. Lets say you identify this pattern and you expose that the other person is a pathological liar, since even pathological liars may say some truth at an interval, on purpose or by mistake, negating everything he says as lies because he is a liar is not a valid argument. Its in fact its ad hominem abusive.

I have read that pathological lying is a psychological dysfunction that cannot be analysed without third party or other informants simply by analysing the patient. Thus, how could one do so in a discussion?

Why would some one be such in an environment with no ventilation for money or any other kind of personal gain? I am interested in hearing some thoughts. Take it as a hypothetical situation or real life.

Cheers.

Better leave them alone. The will lie on you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ask Joe Biden.

OMGosh if that doesn't hit the nail on the head.

 

[Aupmanyav]

OP: I would say 'Expose them' (like @Eddi said).