>>15987492Embellishment of events does not equate falsehood of observed events.
"I saw a fish that was 30 feet long"
It was probably not 30 feet long, it was probably smaller, regardless what you saw was a big fish nonetheless.
Outside of personal gain/influence, why would a human lie about something that they have indeed seen?
If I wore a purple jacket, a red hat, and blue shoes and shot a man in front of you; would you not say "I saw a man get shot today?" You might embellish or mix up some of the details, that's supposed to happen and expected.
But you'd observe and report the basic common truth yes? You saw a man shoot another man.
Now if you didn't see this, but said that you did; you are telling a lie...but not from a direct observation. You may have seen my purple jacket, red hat, and blue shoes, and said "Ah, yes. This person, I will say he is a murderer" but in telling your "observation" you'd be making things up on the fly.
Thus, you aren't reporting on an observation, rather telling a lie for your own accord.
As stated before, humans rarely lie when it comes to the common base core of an actual observation of events.
Whether or not they actually saw what they think they believed they saw or just an interpretation of what their minds can handle is a different story altogether, and the argument I am making in the thread.
In fact, your assertion of "Humans don't tell lies" is the soul of my mine. "Everything that you know is a lie, everything you live under is an assumption and a cope."
So while you are wrong, your sentiment is in the right.
