Why, if this means, you stay on the plane, you win. But nobody looses his/her face.
So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong?
Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become imho.
There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. There is nothing civilized about abuse of power. There is nothing civilized in accepting it.
But the real WTF is: how would agreeing to be led off the plane have resulted in him staying on it? His fate was sealed when he explained his picture to the FA and she had a 'nam flashback, or whatever the fuck caused this; but what makes you think crawling on his belly after that would have changed anything?
I think the best you could do under the circumstances would be to apologise for taking pictures and explain that the FA was mistaken. If they want to kick you off at that point you have to put up with it.
But DoubleCluster is right. Accusing the FA of lying just displays a huge lack of social awareness. It's also not factual - the OP doesn't really know whether the FA made a mistake or not.
If you flat-out accuse the flight attendant of lying, you're going to trigger an "us versus them" situation with the flight staff. At that point the captain is definitely going to side with the FA.
The reason his fate was sealed was that the captain had to decide whether his staff were going to be comfortable sharing a flight with this guy. Under the circumstances, I think he made the right decision.
If you flat-out accuse the flight attendant of lying, you're going to trigger an "us versus them" situation with the flight staff.
That was already triggered by the FA's clandestine response to the traveller's openness, and the COMMAND to leave the plane. To blame this on the passenger is very comfortable and very cowardly IMO. "she lied", "that's not true".. those are the same thing when it comes to what this actually was about. He wasn't escorted off the plane for hurting the ego of staff by failing to be intimidated; it was about wether he took pictures after having being asked to stop, at least allegedly.
And yes, the captain has to decide wether his staff is comfortable with passengers, and more importantly, wether that is the fault of said passengers or said staff. If it's the passenger, kick them out, if it's the staff, likewise. In that sense I totally agree, but someone who can't even make eye contact is not up to this; so it's up to the airline weither they feel comfortable having weak staff on board of expensive equipment.
> There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie.
Was it? Or did she misunderstand his need to justify himself as a way of indicating that he did not intend to stop? You assume she lied -- probably because that's what you are most comfortable believing -- but it's not necessarily true. People make false claims all the time that they really, genuinely believe to be the truth. Based on the scant evidence as we have, your accusation toward the flight attendant could even be an example of the same thing she did -- automatically assuming the worst of someone.
> Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.
No, this is not correct. If the speaker doesn't know that a statement is false, the statement is not a lie. Lying requires knowledge that the remark is false and must include an intent to deceive.
While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. If I say "lutusp killed JFK" then that is a lie, even though I do not know that it is false. It is a lie exactly because I do not know it to be true. Something can be a lie if it is true! Suppose the FA said "he took more pictures" without having seen him taking more pictures, with the intent to deceive the captain to get this guy off the plane. That is a lie even if he did take more pictures, because the FA does not know it to be true.
Quote: "Lie : noun : a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a lie>"
Quote: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
Here's how this works. If you have an idea about how a word is defined that conflicts with another's claim, before objecting, look up the word.
EDIT: also, think for a minute about your claim:
> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.
How can a person be said to have an intent to deceive if he isn't aware that his remark is false? How does he form an intent to deceive using a statement he believes to be true?
Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking.
You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam-webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly contradict what you claim.
1 :
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)
By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but that's what it says.
> 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 charged with perjury. So knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would seem to be important.
> > 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 being that those directly contradict what you said.
It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.
Okay, I will try again. Explain how a person can intend to deceive if he doesn't know his remarks are false. An "intent to deceive" means the speaker knows his remarks are deceitful -- i.e. other than truthful.
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.
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]
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]
This definition would seem to make it impossible to be mistaken without lying. If you're wrong, the thing you said isn't true, so it's a lie. That hardly seems like a reasonable definition.
I would bet that you say things all the time that you do not know with 100% certainty but which seem likely enough than you assume them to be true. I have never met someone who does not.
For example, have you ever told somebody that you were meeting somebody else when you were not looking right at them as you prepared to sit down for the meeting? What you actually mean is that you believe you will meet them based on your understanding of a conversation you had. You could have heard the wrong day, they could be right about to cancel, your car could break down — you get the idea.
If she assumes him possibly indicating intent to not stop to be actually taking pictures, then maybe you're right, she didn't lie... because as Chomsky pointed out in a talk I saw recently, the accusation of lying implies the capacity to tell the truth, which requires a level of mental processing out of the reach of the FA... so as you can see, at least for me saying she lied is the kindest one of all available options.
Depends on your definition of "a lie" but in any case, accusations of lying are confrontational. It's far better to at least appear to be assuming the best in others by framing it as a miscommunication.
BTW, you do lose. You lose self respect and dignity, and yet more freedom. Every time each of us has that chipped away, its another win for the terrorist, who must be laughing their nuts off watching scared westerners become more and more borg like.
But hey, you get your flight, and as we know, that is way more important than freedom, self respect and dignity. Short term gain always trumps long term decency. Of course the vast majority are quite happy for that trade off, given how scared we all are of a 1 in 2 million chance terrorist attack in the US. Context: 1 in 900,00 that you'll die in your bath... Or 1 in 19,000 of dying in your car. 15 US citizens died of terrorists in 2010.
So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong?
Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become imho.