Oliver Murray Posted almost 2 years ago If you tell a lie and it becomes the truth, does it matter that you once lied? Interesting, I initially disagreed with your position, because I considered deception and lies to be equivocal in the sense that it is about actively trying to get another to hold true an idea you believe to be false through communication. Wiki states "The five primary forms of deception are: Lies: making up information or giving information that is the opposite or very different from the truth. Equivocations: making an indirect, ambiguous, or contradictory statement. Concealments: omitting information that is important or relevant to the given context, or engaging in behavior that helps hide relevant information. Exaggerations: overstatement or stretching the truth to a degree. Understatements: minimization or downplaying aspects of the truth." So here a lie is a sub-class of deception where you actively invent information that is untrue, while concealment has the same ends it doesnt rely on the creation of an untruth in the mind of the deceiver, but in the deceiver providing true information in a way that he knows the receiver will interpret in such a way that they will create the untrue scenario on their own. Dictionary.com and Wicktionary do however include any attempt to convey a false impression. If you come at it from a pure communication perspective, it begins to fall back into my original assumption. Consider this scenario. The liar has a certain untrue idea he wants to pass on to a receiver. The liar also is aware and adept at rhetoric, the study of the effective use of language. If the liar knows that his untrue idea is more likely to be transferred to the mind of the receiver through omission rather than specifically expressing his untrue idea, doesnt that then become the active (and in a way more intelligent and effective) communication of a untrue idea? How then is communicating a falsehood different from telling a falsehood? Anyone able to clear this up for me?