Different types of lies

[Liebling:-)))]

Interesting link:

White Lies and Other Deceptions

Print Commentary
Email to a Friend

Gregory Koukl

Is lying ever right? Is trespassing? Is violence? Some thoughts to help you sharpen your ability to make ethical decisions.

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ethics/lie.htm

I think lying is wrong. However, we have to be clear on what constitutes lying, that is, immoral deception.
It seems that not all deceptions are immoral. Did you ever make a fake while playing basketball? Isn't such a feint a deception? It is, but I don't think most people would consider it immoral, even though it was, in fact, deceptive.

Liebling: Exactly like what I say lying is not okay but in different reasons.

There are other examples. We dress to flatter our figures instead of being entirely truthful about our physical shape. We wear hairpieces if our hair is thinner than we'd like to show. There are times we're not forthcoming with all the truth. More could be said, but we withhold information.

Liebling: Would you call them liar or fake that's just because they let the people think their hair is real? To me, no I consider them for their good reason.

Incidentally, I don't think Jesus was always forthright. Take, for example, the woman at the well (John 4). Jesus had a goal He was not immediately forthright about. I don't see this as manipulation, though, but as sensitivity to the moment. If Jesus wasn't always entirely forthright in some cases, yet we know He never committed any sin, then that means it isn't necessarily a sin if you're not forthright about everything.

Liebling: Interesting, what do you think of this?

A moral dilemma is when you must choose one of two things, but either thing would be wrong to do when taking on its own. Do you endanger a human life, or do you tell a lie? If you choose to tell the truth, and may you do right by telling the truth, but it seems you do wrong by exposing a human being to serious harm. If you protect the human being by lying, well, you've saved a life, but told a lie. That is a moral or ethical dilemma.

There are a couple of different ways Christians have approached this historically. One is to claim there really is no such thing as an ethical dilemma. Some will say you should never lie, you should always tell the truth, and let God worry about the consequences.

What if you see a woman run into an alley to escape someone who's trying to kill her, and they ask you, "Where is she?" What do you do? Do you send them on a wild goose chase to protect the woman's life? Or do you lead them to their victim?

Some would say you are morally obliged to tell exactly where she's hiding and let God take care of it. But that option can cut in both directions. Why not protect her by lying and let God take care of it by forgiving the lie? Which do you choose? This question is at the heart of all ethical dilemmas.

The Bible gives us some guidance on this. It teaches that not all sins are the same. Some are more egregious than others. This is very clear in the Scriptures. Jesus said to Pilate, "He who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11). According to Jesus, some sins are greater than others.

Liebling: Interesting... What would you do think of this? Would you do that?

What about so-called "white lies." Are they okay since they're only small deceptions? My rule is this: I think people should tell the truth unless they have a more weighty moral reason not to be straightforward.

If my wife asked me if I thought she was overweight and she was, I wouldn't say, "No, honey, you're perfect." First, she probably knows better. Second, I think she'd actually be looking for affirmation from me, not really an assessment of her weight. I'd tell her what I thought, but would be careful to do it in a way that protected her as an individual. I'd let her know that being overweight wouldn't change my love for her.

Liebling: Yes, I beleive the truth is the best because my friends/relatives deserve it but only if they ASK me for my opinion. I don't beleive to play being flattery and pretend to them saying how beautiful dress, hair, etc. etc. you have BECAUSE they ASK for my OPINION.

Here is another example, a classic for single guys. A guy goes out on a date and doesn't enjoy himself, so he wouldn't be inclined to ask the young lady out again, though he suspects she enjoyed herself and would like to get together again. What does he say when he drops her off? He isn't going to say, "I'm never going to call you again," yet he doesn't want to just walk away and say nothing. Because of the awkwardness he says, "I'll call you," but he doesn't intend to and never does.

Liebling: WRONG! It could lead girl beleive that he want to go out with her again. I would say when I were him: "See you around" which it means is he see her everywhere in school, college, work etc or "Thank you for great evening" and leave slowly in friendly way without give her goodnight kiss.

I also think it's wrong to tell children that Santa Claus is real. It accomplishes no superior moral purpose. It's only deception. Children might eventually believe you've deceived them about God, too. They can't see Santa and they can't see God, either. There's no good reason to create a problem by starting with a deception.

Liebling: mmmmhhhh, I'm guilty to tell my children about Santa Claus :-o : I thought it's lovely to see exciting children's faces when I tell them about Santa Claus. I was excited about this when I was a little girl. Is it harm?

I think lying is right sometimes. I think Rahab did right when she lied about the spies. I think the Hebrew midwives did right when they lied to Pharaoh to protect the lives of the Hebrew children.

I think trespassing is right sometimes. I think violence is right sometimes. I think there are many things that, in isolation, would be wrong, but when a higher moral good is served, they not only become not wrong, they become obligatory. That's hard for some to accept.

Rahab was obliged to lie to protect the lives of those spies. Both James and the writer of Hebrews applaud her for her action. They didn't say, "Shame, shame, but I guess you chose the lesser of two evils." Instead, they acted like she chose the greater of two goods. She did what was right.
I think that's the Biblical view. In Acts 4, the apostles were told to disobey the government and preach the gospel. Paul says that we are obliged to obey the government. Yet when the government tells us to disobey a higher command of God, then we are morally obliged to disobey the government. We have to choose the greater good, as the disciples did.

Liebling: Interesting, What do you think?

 

[Eve]

White lie is to protect ourself from harm by others esp the evildoers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=white lie

white lie
n.
An often trivial, diplomatic or well-intentioned untruth.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions
-16th century proverb

Would you tell people what you think or feeling about them by being honest even thou those your own truth (not God's) may harm them?

Being tactful and lying are not the same thing. Reba already addressed this earlier.

Then I remember Jesus' most important commandment of all Love God with all your heart, love yourself with all your heart and love your neighbors with all your heart.

*highlighted portion was never part of the greatest commandment

To disconcert him, one of them put a question,

Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?

Jesus said, "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the greatest and the first commandment.

The second resembles it: You must love your neighbor as yourself.

On these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets also."

Matthew 22:35-40

"Where is she?" What do you do? Do you send them on a wild goose chase to protect the woman's life? Or do you lead them to their victim?

Here is an example of one I would evade, rather than feeling the need to lie. A good response might be, ”I am not going to tell you, I am going to call the police instead” or “Why do you want to know?” God does not say that we have to answer all questions that are asked of us, he just prefers that we remain truthful. Jesus provided us with the perfect example of this:

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
John 8:3-9

Liebling: Interesting, What do you think?

I think I would rather trust in what God has set out for us in his scripture than what some false prophet twisting God’s words for his own self-serving benefit.

 

[Reba]

...For instance, a couple living in Nazi Germany decide to harbor Jewish fugitives. The gestapo comes a'knocking on the door, asking for Jewish fugitives.

If the couple were Kantians, they would give up the Jews, for the sake of moral righteousness. But that would mean they were monsters since they knew the Jews were to be shipped off to extermination camps. ..

What a totally bogus scenario.

First of all, a couple that is brave enough and moral enough to hide Jews from the Nazis, aren't the kind of people who will just "give up the Jews" when the Nazis come to their door. This kind of situation is not just hypothetical; it actually happened, many times. Brave "righteous Gentiles" protected Jews at the risk of their own lives. I have read many of their accounts.

Do you really think that whether the couple lied to the Nazis or told the full truth to them it would make a difference?

Nazis:
"Excuse me, do you have any Jews hiding in your house?"

Homeowner:
"No, we do not."

Nazis:
"Oh, OK. Sorry for disturbing you. Bye, bye."

No way!


Nazis:
"Where are the Jews? We know you are hiding them!"

Homeowner:
"No, no, there are no Jews here!"

Nazis:
"Get out of my way! We are going to tear your house apart until we find them."


Or...

Nazis:
"Where are the Jews? We know that you are hiding them!"

Homeowner (who has NOT surrendered his gun to the government):
BANG! BANG!


Or...

Nazis:
"Where are the Jews? We know that you are hiding them!"

Homeowner:
(says nothing)

Nazis:
(push their way in and tear the house apart looking for Jews)


What do you think would really happen?

The Nazi v. Christian-hiding-Jew is so yesterday and lame. You couldn't come up with something original?

 

[Reba]

...What if you see a woman run into an alley to escape someone who's trying to kill her, and they ask you, "Where is she?" What do you do? Do you send them on a wild goose chase to protect the woman's life? Or do you lead them to their victim?

Why are those the only choices? It doesn't make sense. Most people would be so frightened they would say nothing, or scream, or run away. If they had a weapon, they could confront the killer.
Does anyone really think a killer would expect to get a straight answer from a frightened stranger? It's a STUPID unrealistic scenario, IMO.

 

[GalaxyAngel]

excuz' moi,

Why can't you chill out and bash her ? Just she brings the link for everyone as condiser "Let them know".

Doesn't make sense why you bring disagree w/her totally... Not her own BREATH.. It's LINK related.. *duh you have problematic??"

*ahem*
((sigh))

 

[Reba]

Huh?

 

[The Heretic]

a great deal of bloomin' and buzzin' confusion...

What a totally bogus scenario.

Yet not too "bogus" to have taken place in the past, as you clearly indicate below. Of course, equivocation is a good trick in debates, but it won't fly here.

First of all, a couple that is brave enough and moral enough to hide Jews from the Nazis, aren't the kind of people who will just "give up the Jews" when the Nazis come to their door. This kind of situation is not just hypothetical; it actually happened, many times. Brave "righteous Gentiles" protected Jews at the risk of their own lives. I have read many of their accounts.

You fail to answer the question:

Would you, or would you not lie to save them?

Please answer this, without backslapping christians or further evasion. If you choose to evade this again, then we have nothing further to say.

Do you really think that whether the couple lied to the Nazis or told the full truth to them it would make a difference?

Yes, you haven't read enough accounts, or aren't honest with what you know. Nazi german soldiers did ask questions, and in that situation, would you have answered in the affirmative or in the negative?
Perhaps you lack the courage or the honesty to say so here.

...blah blah... [snipped to save bandwidth]...

What do you think would really happen?
The Nazi v. Christian-hiding-Jew is so yesterday and lame. You couldn't come up with something original?

I'm probably the most original poster in this forum, and this example is one of the most bold and definite cases against telling the truth at all times. I also notice you haven't offered an original example of your own in return, so kindly drop the grandstanding and answer the question.

would you lie or would you admit the truth?

What the nazi soldiers did afterwards is irrelevant.

They could've taken you at your word and left you alone.
They could've chose to break your door down and storm your place.
They could've discovered the Jews hiding in your basement and seen your courage and somehow, choose their conscience against their orders. THeir actions are infinitely possible, so again, that's completely irrelevant.

But without knowledge of the future, what would have you done?

Feel free to remain evasive or pull an Ostrich act, or try and discover some courage in answering the question.

 

[The Heretic]

Reba's actions so far remind me of the Russian Zorin at the United Nations assembly when he chose to be "evasive" in light of the evidence of the Soviet Missles in Cuba. Adlai Stevenson repeatedly asked him the following:

Do you or do you not have missles in Cuba?

He didn't let up until Zorin was forced into a corner, admitting: You'll get your answer later.

Perhaps we will see Reba answering the question without handwaving.

Perhaps pigs will fly out of my butt first.

 

[Reba]

...Would you, or would you not lie to save them?

If lying would really save them, then maybe I would. It is too hypothetical to give an answer to a situation that has so many variables and possibilities. Anyone who says they would absolutely do thus or such in a hypothetical situation is lying. No one really knows what one would say or do in a "suppose" situation. We can hope to do the right thing but we really don't know what we would do. I will be honest and tell you that I really can't know until that situation really happens. I will not try to appear noble and give a heroic answer. I will honestly say, I don't know.

Nazi german soldiers did ask questions, and in that situation, would you have answered in the affirmative or in the negative?

Sure, the soldiers asked questions, but the answers really didn't matter to them. They never believed those they questioned, and would do what they wanted to anyway. If someone lied and said that no Jews where in the house, do you truly believe that the soldiers would just accept that? Ha! And you think that I am naive!

Perhaps you lack the courage or the honesty to say so here.

I love how you try to use personal attacks on my character to get a response. Really, so junior high. Aren't you a little old for that?

I'm probably the most original poster in this forum, and this example is one of the most bold and definite cases against telling the truth at all times.

Oooh, so modest too!

I also notice you haven't offered an original example of your own in return, so kindly drop the grandstanding and answer the question.

I don't know what you mean by "an original example".

Well, I gave my answer. What is your answer?

What the nazi soldiers did afterwards is irrelevant.

No, it has a strong bearing on the response. If you can expect a certain result to your response, then it would certainly influence your answer.

They could've taken you at your word and left you alone.

We are talking about WWII Nazi soldiers, right?

They could've discovered the Jews hiding in your basement and seen your courage and somehow, choose their conscience against their orders.

Ha, ha, ha. Right, I'm sure that would happen!

THeir actions are infinitely possible, so again, that's completely irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. The anticipated reaction is the "reason" (as Liebling has stated) people choose to lie. People lie to avoid a negative or painful reaction from the other party.

Feel free to remain evasive or pull an Ostrich act, or try and discover some courage in answering the question.

I don't believe I have been evasive. I gave you my honest answer. Sorry if it wasn't quick enough for you. I do have a life (and job), and some days I don't even have time to go on-line.

 

[The Heretic]

Flying Pigs spotted in California, film at 11

Breaking news: I couldn't post this earlier via Sidekick, so my retort had to wait until i came home after work. We now return to your regular programming.

If lying would really save them, then maybe I would.

That's all I wanted to hear, a definite answer, despite the infinite number of possibile consequences, and knowing that your direct answer could have led to certain results.

I will be honest and tell you that I really can't know until that situation really happens. I will not try to appear noble and give a heroic answer. I will honestly say, I don't know.

I agree that hypothetical situations are hardly the actual ones in real life. Contemplating siituations has little to do with being in that particular situation. But nobody has actual situations to refer to, so all we have are hypothetical situations often found in ethics 100 class.

Sure, the soldiers asked questions, but the answers really didn't matter to them. They never believed those they questioned, and would do what they wanted to anyway. If someone lied and said that no Jews where in the house, do you truly believe that the soldiers would just accept that? Ha! And you think that I am naive!

Believe it or not, German citizens still had their rights during Nazi germany. Watching too many hollywood movies that exagggerate their villany will ruin historical accuracy, and distort the truths of the past. If you browse the historical section of your university library, you'd be shocked to find the difference between hollywood romantic myth and history. The gulf is nearly bridgeless its embarrassing.

I love how you try to use personal attacks on my character to get a response. Really, so junior high. Aren't you a little old for that?

Well, for one, I'm a pragmatist, and it worked. For another, using personal attacks to defend against personal attacks is also funny, if not the height of unintentional irony.

Oooh, so modest too!

I would be lying otherwise.

I don't know what you mean by "an original example".

Aye, charging something as unorginal implies you know what is and what isn't. If you don't offer a counterexample then yer simply talkin' through your hat.

Well, I gave my answer. What is your answer?

I'd pull a Rambo and bomb the shit out of the Gestapo. How's that for unoriginality?

No, it has a strong bearing on the response. If you can expect a certain result to your response, then it would certainly influence your answer.

You missed my point. You implied there were an infinite number of possible outcomes, but in reality there are two: lie or tell the truth, and hope to hell the Gestapo were too busy to go inside and verify your claims. Telling the truth would immediately send them inside to round em up for a permanent vacation at auschwitz. A lie would've bought some time, which might have made all the difference in the world. That you continue to dance around this clearly indicates the poverty of your position.

Its likely those gentiles/christians/folks harboring jews were trying to find a way out of the country for them, and a safe place in the meanwhile was certainly on the agenda, before the means of transportation became available.

We are talking about WWII Nazi soldiers, right?

Yes, go study some history and stop watching cartoon movies with black and white characters, and you might learn something, if accidentally.

Ha, ha, ha. Right, I'm sure that would happen!

More evidence history is not your strong suit.

No, it is not irrelevant. The anticipated reaction is the "reason" (as Liebling has stated) people choose to lie. People lie to avoid a negative or painful reaction from the other party.

Speculating about infinite possibilites is irrelevant. Matters of life and death hardly ever allow the time of such speculation at one's pace.

I don't believe I have been evasive. I gave you my honest answer. Sorry if it wasn't quick enough for you. I do have a life (and job), and some days I don't even have time to go on-line.

Believe it or not, I'm actually standing outside my work building typing this on the mobile, waiting for my shift to start. Having a job and a "life" does not preclude from posting on alldeaf, unless you're back on your horse again and your oats need to be squeezed once more.

In any case, I'm glad you replied, despite how much dust you've kicked up in order to conceal it.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I think I would rather trust in what God has set out for us in his scripture than what some false prophet twisting God’s words for his own self-serving benefit.

How do you know that false prophet twist God's words?
Well, I find the logical link. It look like that you beleive your bible, don't you? How do you know that your bible is not false?


http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-20-04.asp

The Hebrew midwives were commanded by "the king of Egypt" to put to death all the male children being born to the Hebrew women (Ex. 1:15–16). The Hebrew midwives disobeyed the edict of the king: "But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live" (1:17). The midwives had to make a choice. Did God's law overrule the command of a king, even "the king of Egypt"? God shows His approval of their actions: "So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty. And it came about because the midwives feared God, that He established households for them" (1:20-21).

Jochebed, Moses' mother, also disobeyed the edict of the king by hiding her child and later creating a way of escape for him so he would not be murdered by the king's army: "But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch. Then she put the child into it, and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile" (2:3). Jochebed even deceived Pharaoh's daughter into believing that she, Jochebed, was in no way related to the child (2:7-9). Surely Jochebed was right in her defiance.

Rahab hid the spies of Israel and lied about their whereabouts. When a route for escape became available, she led them out another way from that of the pursuing soldiers. The king issued a command to Rahab: "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land" (Josh. 2:3). She disobeyed a direct command of the "king of Jericho." Some want to maintain that Rahab was right in "welcoming the spies in peace" (Heb. 11:31), but she was wrong in lying about the whereabouts of the spies. The following is a representative example:

We see, therefore, that neither Scripture itself nor the theological inferences derived from Scripture provide us with any warrant for the vindication of Rahab's untruth and this instance, consequently, does not support the position that under certain circumstances we may justifiably utter an untruth.5

"Welcoming them in peace" means that they would not fall in the hands of the king of Jericho which would have meant certain death. Rahab had changed her allegiance from Jericho to Israel. Conditions of war were operating. If she had told the truth to the men seeking the two spies, then she would have been an accomplice in their deaths (cf. Psalm 50:18).

There is another point that is often missed in this story about Rahab's lie. "Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim. . . (Josh. 2:1). The text continues by telling us that "they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there." Did they announce that they were Israelite spies? Joshua says the operation was to be done "secretly," that is, without revealing the truth of their mission. Are not "spies" in the business of lying? Why was Joshua right in sending men to spy out the land, while Rahab was wrong in lying about the route the spies took? Why were the spies right in hiding and Rahab wrong in not revealing where they were hiding? Is not that an act of deception? Why didn't they rebuke Rahab for lying? Why didn't the spies leave by the same route they entered the city? Instead, they were accomplices in Rahab's lie by allowing her to "let them down by a rope through the window" (2:15).

Rahab is praised by two New Testament writers for her actions: "By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace" (Heb. 11:31). Rahab is listed with Abraham as one whose faith was reflected in her works: "And in the same way [as Abraham] was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" (James 2:25). By sending the spies out by another way, she subverted the king's desire to capture the spies. God commended Rahab for deception. Again, the circumstances were atypical. "The critics of Rahab's lie apparently think her case is analogous to David's adultery with Bathsheba, a union which ultimately produced Solomon. We are not, of course, bound to praise David's action simply because Solomon's rule produced many desirable results (such as the construction of God's temple). We are specifically told that David's adultery was abhorrent in the eyes of God; we are not so informed about Rahab's actions."6

If you want to know more about Rahab then check this.
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=Rahab+lie+for+spies&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Why are those the only choices? It doesn't make sense. Most people would be so frightened they would say nothing, or scream, or run away. If they had a weapon, they could confront the killer.
Does anyone really think a killer would expect to get a straight answer from a frightened stranger? It's a STUPID unrealistic scenario, IMO.

Don't forget about confident!

Of course there're many confidence Killer who can public speaking to people. They dress well-business and can lead people believe that they are store salesmen or detective in professional way. I know what I'm saying because I work for Police Criminal Unit for 5 years in London. I often saw the criminal reports how upset the people are because they thought the runaways are shoplift, thief, etc. but they weren't realized that they were being manipulated by smart killer because they thought they want to chase shoplifters etc.


What I do? Simple said: "Don't know" then call police straight way to give the description. Why I have to lie because I know they CAN call police themselves instead of ask us where runaways are.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

[

QUOTE=The Heretic]

Believe it or not, German citizens still had their rights during Nazi germany.

Speculating about infinite possibilites is irrelevant. Matters of life and death hardly ever allow the time of such speculation at one's pace.

Exactly



*I must go now to canteen for my lunch. I'll be back for more post*

 

[Liebling:-)))]

First of all, a couple that is brave enough and moral enough to hide Jews from the Nazis, aren't the kind of people who will just "give up the Jews" when the Nazis come to their door. This kind of situation is not just hypothetical; it actually happened, many times. Brave "righteous Gentiles" protected Jews at the risk of their own lives. I have read many of their accounts.

Do you really think that whether the couple lied to the Nazis or told the full truth to them it would make a difference?

I felt that you know a little about Nazi history.

Nazis:
"Excuse me, do you have any Jews hiding in your house?"

Correct

Homeowner:
"No, we do not."

Correct

Nazis:
"Oh, OK. Sorry for disturbing you. Bye, bye."

Correct
but sometimes Nazi can do that:
"Can we go in"?
or
Can we come for a look?

German citizens have to say yes. Germans are very respectful people and alway say yes.
They hide Jewish very good. Sometimes Nazi can find them or not. German citizens knew they risk their life for jews. They sentenced to death for help jews. This is a sacrifice what they did for jews.

No way!

Wrong

Nazis:
"Where are the Jews? We know you are hiding them!"

WRONG but only if there're jewish houseowner is a different story. They can denied or make fun to hurt Jewish houseowners whatever they feel like.[/COLOR]

Homeowner:
"No, no, there are no Jews here!"

I know German manner way - They never say like this but answer in manner way: No, we don't have Jews here. Nazi Officer will consider it as disrespectful if German say like this. No, because Hilter like to see his people act in manner way.

Nazis:
"Get out of my way! We are going to tear your house apart until we find them."

Only if there're Jewish houseowners... Yes, but not German citizens.

Nazi:
(push their way in and tear the house apart looking for Jews)

Only if there're jewish houseowners or disabled German houseowners.

Most jewish houseowners sacrifice their life for their families. They hide their family real good but it's awful and nightmare for the family to hide and watch Nazi hurt Jewish houseowner or whatever....



I would suggest you to watch "The Pianist". Have you heard about this? This is one of the BEST films I have ever seen. It's very emotional & make us cry. It's horror movie, I ever seen.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/
The Pianist is the true story of Wladyslaw Szpilman during Nazi time of Warsaw in 1939. He is one well known Holocaust survivors in history.
German Officer Hosenfeld helped Jewish-Polish Pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman and also history of Wladyslaw Szpilman, too.

Check history of Waldyslaw Szpilman. German Officer Hosenfeld are mentioned in Szpilman's history who helped him.
http://www.szpilman.net/


Jewish-Germans battle for years for their rights to let Germans know what they had been through in Nazi time. Honestly, I often watch true jewish movies when I was in England and thought I would watch like this in Germany. I never watch Jewish movies like this for 20 years but Nazi documents every year until "The Pianist" film come to TV for a first time last Monday. It look like German government give up and give jewish rights to let us to watch jewish during Nazi time movies.
Let me say bit about him. He's not a hero, rebel or liar but simple man who tried everything power to stay alive and withness many horrors, example like that - a lady asked Nazi officer "where should you bring us to?" All what Nazi Officer do is shot to her head. A jewish lady asked anyone for water because her toddler is thirsty. What Nazi do is shot poor toddler because he cries for drink..

"I looked like a wild man," he recalls. "I was dirty, unshaven, my hair was long. The German found me when I was in the ruins of someone's kitchen, looking for food. I found out later - this isn't in the book - that he was looking for toothpaste, but no matter. When he saw me, he asked me what on earth was I doing there ... What could I say? I couldn't say that I was Jewish, that I was hiding, that I had been in these ruins for months. I told him that this was my old flat, that I had come back to see what was left ..."
http://www.szpilman.net/

As you see that he have a good reason to lie (I mean he have to

Well it's not just German Officer who helped Jewish to hide. Alot of good heart Germans do that.


110% truth is impossible... I will never beleive you if you claim that you are saying 110% truth.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

If lying would really save them, then maybe I would.

This is an exactly answer, I want to hear.

Sure, the soldiers asked questions, but the answers really didn't matter to them. They never believed those they questioned, and would do what they wanted to anyway. If someone lied and said that no Jews where in the house, do you truly believe that the soldiers would just accept that? Ha! And you think that I am naive!

WRONG, Nazi soldiers or Officers respect German houseowners's answer in manner way. Of course they would ask German house owner to let them go in their house only if they doubt German house owner's word. Like what I say in my previous post.

Liebling's post
Correct
but sometimes Nazi can do that:
"Can we go in"?
or
Can we come for a look?

German citizens have to say yes. Germans are very respectful people and always say yes.
They hide Jewish very good. Sometimes Nazi can find them or not. German citizens knew they risk their life for Jews. They sentenced to death for help Jews. This is a sacrifice what they did for Jews.

If someone lied and said that no Jews where in the house, do you truly believe that the soldiers would just accept that?

Yes, to Germans. Depend on their doubt on German's word.

 

[Reba]

Believe it or not, German citizens still had their rights during Nazi germany. Watching too many hollywood movies that exagggerate their villany will ruin historical accuracy, and distort the truths of the past. If you browse the historical section of your university library, you'd be shocked to find the difference between hollywood romantic myth and history. The gulf is nearly bridgeless its embarrassing.

I have and do read to get my historical information. I also watch movies and the History Channel, with a critical eye (almost too critical; Hubby can't stand watching TV with me because I can't quit analyzing the programs). In high school I did a research paper on the sociological, political and propaganda aspects of the German film industry from the silent era thru WWII. That was just the beginning.

During the Nazi regime, they knocked on the doors of not just German citizens, but also on doors in Holland, Poland, Austria, etc. German citizens had "rights" but the authority of the Reich superseded them.

I suspect you and I view these events from different perspectives.

Well, for one, I'm a pragmatist, and it worked. For another, using personal attacks to defend against personal attacks is also funny, if not the height of unintentional irony.

...or intentional

I'd pull a Rambo and bomb the shit out of the Gestapo. How's that for unoriginality?

A good solution doesn't always have to be original; sometimes the old stand-bys work best.

A lie would've bought some time...

Not necessarily. They could barge in and start searching regardless of the answer.

More evidence history is not your strong suit.

Evidence? Do you have historical evidence that any of my statements were not correct?

Believe it or not, I'm actually standing outside my work building typing this on the mobile, waiting for my shift to start. Having a job and a "life" does not preclude from posting on alldeaf, unless you're back on your horse again and your oats need to be squeezed once more.

Pretty close. When I am at work I don't have access to a computer. I don't have mobile text, and my cell phone doesn't even connect at the location where I work. Also, believe it or not, responding to AD threads is not a top priority in my life.

 

[Reba]

...Of course there're many confidence Killer who can public speaking to people. They dress well-business and can lead people believe that they are store salesmen or detective in professional way. I know what I'm saying because I work for Police Criminal Unit for 5 years in London. I often saw the criminal reports how upset the people are because they thought the runaways are shoplift, thief, etc. but they weren't realized that they were being manipulated by smart killer because they thought they want to chase shoplifters etc.

The original question was:
What if you see a woman run into an alley to escape someone who's trying to kill her, and they ask you, "Where is she?"
The question stated that someone was trying to kill the woman. It didn't say someone was trying to arrest the woman. That's a big difference. The scenario was pretty skimpy on descriptive details. What do it mean "trying to kill the woman"? Was the guy shooting a gun, slashing with a knife, or what? Was he yelling, "stop, police!" Did he show a badge or identify himself as police? Was he "well-dressed"? From the statement just as presented, it was implied that the man chasing the woman was NOT a cop.