Azou wrote:Your first and second sources require to be bought to read the full. So, while this by no means discounts them, it means I also can't really judge them.
Dude! They're PEER REVIEWS dork, they have already been "judged." The abstract reveals the results. Your bias and dogma is showing. You might want to cover that up in public.
Also, if you read the abstract of the third it reveals the thrust of the paper:
The study finds that, despite the polygraph’s shortcomings, there is currently no viable technical alternative to polygraphy. While some neuroscience-based alternatives have been proposed, there are significant problems with these techniques and far more research is needed if they are to become sufficiently reliable for use in operational settings.
This is why I added it. I agree that its not 100% but to deny the tell tale signs of lying as we discussed is just that, denial. All people have such signs, MOST OF WHICH can be detected though not to the point of using against people in a court of law. That does not mean they do NOT exist as you are claiming and arguing for. They exist and I have showed evidence for that.
Yet it is all too readily apparent that the current technical and methodological means for detecting intentional deception by individuals are inadequate.
Yes, I added the third as a method of critical thinking, I am sure you have no clue what that is. It was to reveal the current methods are inadequate (remember the 70's reference?) and that new technologies, cause of dem puters, will be more accurate.
You're right, Danny boy, I guess these things can be falsif[ied]. Like your bullshit. And best of all, you're falsifying your own bullshit for me. Thanks, pal!
Obviously, you have no skills in comprehension. At least we revealed that much here. My work is done.
Ironically, the federal government relies extensively on the polygraph for forensic investigations and personnel security, yet the results of polygraph tests are generally inadmissible in federal courts (Greeley, 2004).
Snarky aside, there is some hope for you yet. That was refreshing. "And best of all, you're falsifying your own bull for me. Thanks, pal!"
The paper goes on to discuss the various potential of lie detection. Which is certainly possible, but it has nothing to do with your conscience making your sweat or your pulse quicken. If it is, then the conscience is an poorly designed construct since the response to lying is similar to other emotions that aren't connected to "sin" at all.
Nature? Who the fuck cares? Animals also don't have advanced hygiene or medicine, so I think judging something solely on how "nature" it is would be fairly unwise. You also note that lions don't have complex minds capable of equally complex communication. Or, to be cute, a lion won't be lyin'. So you're making a rather bogus comparison.
"And best of all, you're falsifying your own bull for me. Thanks, pal!" So there are differences huh? Hmm, I wonder why that is? Maybe there is a verse for that. Genesis 1:27 comes to mind. I digress.
No, lie to the government is not always treason. Kent Hovind lied to the government about his organization for the purposes of tax fraud, and yet he is not facing death or a punishment more severe than the "police officer" tier. Maybe you should have kept that post tucked away in those distant years, as it didn't take long to dismantle.
So you deny that its an extreme act against a nation (treason) and then give an example of a guy going to prison for doing that to our nation? Just wow! Are you alright in there? You crack me up. Have a great day.