Can the truth ever be a lie?

[laircy]

If, by means of sarcasm, one can tell the truth by lying, then, by means of sarcasm, can one lie by telling the truth?

I know this may not make sense. It’s just a thought I had. When someone says something clearly sarcastically, it is understood that they mean the opposite of what they’re saying. But if they say the truth sarcastically, and it is then understood that they mean the opposite, is it lying?

 

[StrawberryJam]

If, by means of sarcasm, one can tell the truth by lying, then, by means of sarcasm, can one lie by telling the truth?

I know this may not make sense. It’s just a thought I had. When someone says something clearly sarcastically, it is understood that they mean the opposite of what they’re saying. But if they say the truth sarcastically, and it is then understood that they mean the opposite, is it lying?

Give me an example of someone saying the truth as you know it sarcasticly.

 

[laircy]

Give me an example of someone saying the truth as you know it sarcasticly.

Someone comes over to two of her friends and asks them, “Why are you guys over here (as opposed to back at the other table with the rest of us)?”
And the reply is, “Because we don’t want to talk to you.”
The response in itself is true, but, being the constantly joking friends they all are, it is taken as only kidding. The person saying it realizes it will be taken as sarcasm, and uses that to her advantage.

 

[bzkoss236]

Someone comes over to two of her friends and asks them, “Why are you guys over here (as opposed to back at the other table with the rest of us)?”
And the reply is, “Because we don’t want to talk to you.”
The response in itself is true, but, being the constantly joking friends they all are, it is taken as only kidding. The person saying it realizes it will be taken as sarcasm, and uses that to her advantage.

I would say this would still count as being truth, a misunderstood truth, but truth none-the-less.

I would say a better example would be if someone actually said a lie in a sarcastic manner, implying the truth. So to build off your example.

Person 1: Why are you guys all the way over here?
Person 2: Because we don’t want to talk to you. Said sarcastically, implying that they would in fact like to talk to the others

In this situation, Person 2 and whomever (s)he is with would like to talk to Person 1, but told a lie by saying the didn’t. However, the lie was said sarcastically, implying that the lie is in fact a lie, thus revealing the truth.

In this situation, I don’t know what you would consider the response to be. Directly, it is lying, but implies truth.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Someone comes over to two of her friends and asks them, “Why are you guys over here (as opposed to back at the other table with the rest of us)?”
And the reply is, “Because we don’t want to talk to you.”
The response in itself is true, but, being the constantly joking friends they all are, it is taken as only kidding. The person saying it realizes it will be taken as sarcasm, and uses that to her advantage.

Even though the statement was given sarcarstically, it was still a true statement. The two friends at the other table really didn’t want to talk to the first person, and didn’t want to join the other group.

The first person may have taken it as a sarcastic joke, and thought they didn’t mean it. But the statement in itself was still true. So the truth remains the truth.

It’s the perception which may be a problem. But truth is truth, regardless of perception.

 

[coachdennis]

To put it simply

Say what you mean, and mean what you say

And that’s not sarcasm! That’s what adults should strive to do in their communication.

 

[DaveBj]

If, by means of sarcasm, one can tell the truth by lying, then, by means of sarcasm, can one lie by telling the truth?

I know this may not make sense. It’s just a thought I had. When someone says something clearly sarcastically, it is understood that they mean the opposite of what they’re saying. But if they say the truth sarcastically, and it is then understood that they mean the opposite, is it lying?

This OP reminded me of the book Mrs. 'Arris Goes to Paris, a classic that I am going to have to add to my Kindle library. Short version – Mrs. 'Arris, a London charwoman (played by Angela Lansbury in the movie) falls in love with the idea of owning a Dior gown, so she saves and saves and finally has enough to go to Paris and buy a Dior. She has adventures, heals several relationships, makes new friends, and finally has her gown, but then learns she will have to pay import duty on it when she returns to England, and she hasn’t saved for that. Her new friends come up with a scheme – they pack the gown in a cheap plastic suitcase rather than the fancy Dior case, and when the customs inspector asks if she has anything to declare, she says something like, “Only a new Dior frock.” Inspector says, “Yeah, right,” and passes her on.

She told the truth. He believed what he saw. Or thought he saw.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If, by means of sarcasm, one can tell the truth by lying, then, by means of sarcasm, can one lie by telling the truth?

I think the thing here is that you are trying to dichotimize statements as “truth” and “lie” when these are both specific classifications of more generic things. Instead of “lie” try using “misrepresentation” along with some other words.

A misrepresentation is any statement that is not descriptive of the reality of the domain it addresses. Note that this is independent of intent. So prior to 1492 if some one said “The world is flat” he or she is making a statement that is a misrepresentation of the state of affairs, though he or she may not have attended to misrepresent.

Another way of evaluating the statement is to consider the person’s intent. Did the person intend to mislead some one? In the case of a sarcastic statement the literal meaning of the words that make up the phrase may be contrary to reality. But if the speaker has the expectation that the audience will notice this and understand this and correctly interpret his or her intended meaning then the statement of misrepresentation probably should not be called a lie since there was not the intent to mislead.

It’s also possible for a person to selectively share information about something with the intent of convincing the person of an incorrect conclusion. I would call this type of situation “misleading” and “dishonest” if the intent is there.

And finally, a statement can have a truth value. Some statements are more descriptive of reality than others. If some one said “The world is a sphere” this statement has higher truth value than the world is flat. But is less truth value then a statement that also describes the bulge of the earth just below its equator.

Just to bring attention to the key words here:

• truth
• truth value
• lie
• misrepresentation
• mislead
• dishonest

If you use the more generic phrases and ask “Is it possible to mislead without using lies” or “Is it possible to be dishonest without using lies” I would say the answer is “yes.”

 

[Sair]

If, by means of sarcasm, one can tell the truth by lying, then, by means of sarcasm, can one lie by telling the truth?

I know this may not make sense. It’s just a thought I had. When someone says something clearly sarcastically, it is understood that they mean the opposite of what they’re saying. But if they say the truth sarcastically, and it is then understood that they mean the opposite, is it lying?

That would seem to depend upon one’s audience - if you judge that they are incapable of comprehending sarcasm and state the truth in a sarcastic or ironic manner, then you can still be fairly sure it will be taken seriously, and you may not be acting on any intent to deceive; if, on the other hand, you know your listener(s) will assume you mean the opposite of what you say, based on your manner of saying it, then the dishonest intent is still present, despite the form of words.

 

[Sair]

Even though the statement was given sarcarstically, it was still a true statement. The two friends at the other table really didn’t want to talk to the first person, and didn’t want to join the other group.

The first person may have taken it as a sarcastic joke, and thought they didn’t mean it. But the statement in itself was still true. So the truth remains the truth.

It’s the perception which may be a problem. But truth is truth, regardless of perception.

And it’s an old (dating back possibly to Geoffrey Chaucer) but accurate statement (no sarcasm intended, whatsoever) that many a true word is spoken in jest…

 

[norain]

“If, by means of sarcasm, one can tell the truth by lying, then, by means of sarcasm, can one lie by telling the truth?”

tell the truth by lying: presenting a false statement as false = TRUE
lie by telling the truth: presenting a true statement as false = FALSE

So the answer, it seems, is yes, that if a sarcastic statement is indeed using a true statement, then it is a lie (i.e. it is false).

Tricky!