Though I've never been a fan of war/training camps sorta movies, "basic" wasn't that bad at all. I promise there's a point, but I gotta give the gist of the story to make sense. So, apparently, during an out-field training run, a team of six somehow ended up with only one alive n one wounded. As the investigation proceeded, u jump back n forth trying to figure out the "real" story that each person involved only spoke parts of. Then the punch line, "it all depends on degrees of lying". Now, the question is, does not telling the truth constitute as lying?
Well, I'm know there will be a wave of disagreements, but I gotta say, no it doesn't. Think of it this way- let's make this a mock gossip session- u were out with a friend's boyfriend for dinner, n the friend calls to see if u guys were still up for hanging out later. But since things were getting a little bit more interesting, u don't feel like leaving just yet. So u tell her, "I'm actually having dinner right now n I'm not sure when I'll be done. I'll call u when I know." See, that technically wasn't a lie as u were having dinner n its true ur not sure when u'll be done. Really, no part of that conversation was "false"- so to speak. Then, where did all this go wrong?
Well, let's just say, ur friend wasn't asking the "right" questions, so of course she wouldn't get the "right" answers. Back to the scenario- if she asked "who" u were having dinner with n u said ur family, then- time to start sweating n getting creative- u've officially whipped up a partial lie. Particial in that, yes u were having dinner, but no u weren't having it with ur family. That's half a lie right there. Of course, u can lie on various degrees tweaking the facts here n there, but do keep in mind one very important principle- once u tell a lie, ur gonna have to tell more to follow the first. It'll be an endless cycle of making up "facts" as u go n u'll soon find out, if anyone was really paying attention, pinocchio's nose had already turned into a forest. So yah, the next time u think u caught someone right-handed lying, n yet they outright plea innocence, remember what ur questions were. U may have been poking around the bush, but I'm sorry, if u don't call the right cards, u'll never "go fish".
That reminds me of the story of a missing singaporean that my colleague had told me about sometime last week. Okay, don't shoot me if I'm getting the facts slightly wonky cos I didn't really read up on all the case details surrounding the case. So, background info: the missing person was on a trip to greece with a friend n they split up for the day doing their own things (missing person = mr.A n friend= mr.B). Later during the night time, mr.B realized he received a miss call from mr.A but thought it was too late to call back, so he waited till the morning. Until mr.A was officially MIA that mr.B called for help. Now, all of singapore is networking to find this mr.A. There are still no word of mr.A n everyone's doing what they can with the details available to find him. Except, where did all this "information" come from? Well, mr.B said. Hm, surprisingly very fishy. Why? Cos there's really no way to double-check his story, is there? Has anyone ever wondered if parts of it were untrue? I mean, it didn't really make any sense that it'd be "too late" to call someone back to return a miss call, especially when ur the only other person that they know in a foreign country. For all u know, something might have happened. Isn't it just a little weird that he didn't even seemed remotely worried? If it's too late, send a text or something! The inaction at this point just darkens the story a little more. Oh, side note (which was the red flag for me): the two were partners n suppose to present a research together for a conference of some sort. Do u, oh I don't know, see how there could be a motive of some sort here? Well, research? presentation? recognition? The big question mark sits between his words n what really went down.
Being a crim major, I just had to tackle this case cos sometimes, the answer's so obvious that u kinda just overlook it. But with all cases, there is a motive, reason or story- whatever u wanna call it, n sometimes, it's right under ur nose. In this case, it's difficult cos if u doubt the only other "witness/source" n turn him into a "suspect", then u got nothing. Nonetheless, take his story with a grain of salt, n double-check by taking a step back every once in a while- the big picture should become more n more "complete". Just to clarify, I'm not saying he's lying, but u can't prove he's telling the truth either. So under those circumstances n how the case's turning a little cold, u've gotta start wondering, how many "facts" were "true" to begin with.
Actually, now that I think about it, lie and truth should be viewed as the extreme ends of a scale. When u say, "degrees of lie", it should really be equivalent to "degrees of truth", in a sense that they overlap at some point. Little lie kinda means mostly truth, n mostly lie means little truth, doesn't it? But yah, just another way to think about the big picture.
Even so, I'd like to believe that as a being with conscience, we have the ability to differentiate truth from lie n understand their consequences. Everyone's told a lie at some point in their lives. It's not a big deal, really- as long as no one gets hurt. So the next time u decide to tell a lie, at least get the degree right!
Each lie is a step further away from the truth, but don't forget, the earth is round. Ur bound to have ur back right up against the truth at some point.
Each lie is a step further away from the truth, but don't forget, the earth is round. Ur bound to have ur back right up against the truth at some point.