Let sleeping dogs lie. There is no need to open wounds that would not solve any issue. The young man who made a mistake and accidently killed his friend will have to live with that for the rest of his life. Sometimes a lie, or what you call a cover-up, are best when nothing good can come of further discussions. What good would telling the truth bring? It certainly wouldn't bring the young man back to life and his friend who caused the death won't be any happier.

Ok Ian, well when your daughter, wife or mother is killed due to negligence (manslaughter) we will just let sleeping dogs lie.

Never mind if a drunken idiot plows into them ripping flesh from bone, leaving them to spend their last minutes bleeding to death on a lonely street.

Punishing the driver would be pointless right? What good would the truth bring?

So what you are asking for is revenge for an accident between friends.

In most parts of the world, it's called justice.

Apparently in Thailand it's called mai bpen rai.

is truth always right?

I'm not sure.

Nor am I. In fact I think sometimes perhaps it's not.

But we're not talking about "always". (At least I'm not). In this case? My feelings are mostly that the parents have a right to know and the boy needs to be held accountable (not necessarily punished) -- for his own sake, if nothing else.

So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

is truth always right?

I'm not sure.

Nor am I. In fact I think sometimes perhaps it's not.

But we're not talking about "always". (At least I'm not). In this case? My feelings are mostly that the parents have a right to know and the boy needs to be held accountable (not necessarily punished) -- for his own sake, if nothing else.

So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

Well, we were clearly discussing whether the truth was the best option in every situation (ie a moral dlilema) and not in every day communication.

But first of all , I truly couldn't care less whether you or everyone else decides that my above comment means that I habitually lie and secondly I think anyone who assumes that some guy they have an anonymous exchange with on the internet is always telling the truthis a fool or worse.

"Us guys"? Sorry, but you can include yourself and everyone else here too -- if you think because you didn't post what I and Manarak did, that people will and should unconditionally believe everything you say...well... (I'm not implying you are a habitual liar or that you ever have lied on this forum. I know that I haven't)

is truth always right?

I'm not sure.

Nor am I. In fact I think sometimes perhaps it's not.

But we're not talking about "always". (At least I'm not). In this case? My feelings are mostly that the parents have a right to know and the boy needs to be held accountable (not necessarily punished) -- for his own sake, if nothing else.

So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

Try to solve that one:

"I am lying."

is truth always right?

I'm not sure.

Nor am I. In fact I think sometimes perhaps it's not.

But we're not talking about "always". (At least I'm not). In this case? My feelings are mostly that the parents have a right to know and the boy needs to be held accountable (not necessarily punished) -- for his own sake, if nothing else.

So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

Well, we were clearly discussing whether the truth was the best option in every situation (ie a moral dlilema) and not in every day communication.

But first of all , I truly couldn't care less whether you or everyone else decides that my above comment means that I habitually lie and secondly I think anyone who assumes that some guy they have an anonymous exchange with on the internet is always telling the truthis a fool or worse.

"Us guys"? Sorry, but you can include yourself and everyone else here too -- if you think because you didn't post what I and Manarak did, that people will and should unconditionally believe everything you say...well... (I'm not implying you are a habitual liar or that you ever have lied on this forum. I know that I haven't)

Objection, your honor. Please advise the witness that this is a yes or no question and to limit his answer accordingly.

is truth always right?

I'm not sure.

Nor am I. In fact I think sometimes perhaps it's not.

But we're not talking about "always". (At least I'm not). In this case? My feelings are mostly that the parents have a right to know and the boy needs to be held accountable (not necessarily punished) -- for his own sake, if nothing else.

So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

Try to solve that one:

"I am lying."

Now that's the answer I was hoping to see!

Objection, your honor. Please advise the witness that this is a yes or no question and to limit his answer accordingly.

If this were a court of law, you could restrict my answer in such a way. But it isn't --which is why you also have the right to provide explication and context for what you say.

I would have thought the answer you seek implicit in what I said:

I think anyone who assumes that some guy they have an anonymous exchange with on the internet is always telling the truthis a fool or worse.

In other words:

YOU: So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

ME: Yes.

(Unless you are a fool or worse. And anyone -- including me -- should do the same with your posts past, present and future.)

Objection, your honor. Please advise the witness that this is a yes or no question and to limit his answer accordingly.

If this were a court of law, you could restrict my answer in such a way. But it isn't --which is why you also have the right to provide explication and context for what you say.

I would have thought the answer you seek implicit in what I said:

I think anyone who assumes that some guy they have an anonymous exchange with on the internet is always telling the truthis a fool or worse.

In other words:

YOU: So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

ME: Yes.

(Unless you are a fool or worse. And anyone -- including me -- should do the same with your posts past, present and future.)

Dude, you are waaaaaay too serious!

Objection, your honor. Please advise the witness that this is a yes or no question and to limit his answer accordingly.

If this were a court of law, you could restrict my answer in such a way. But it isn't --which is why you also have the right to provide explication and context for what you say.

I would have thought the answer you seek implicit in what I said:

I think anyone who assumes that some guy they have an anonymous exchange with on the internet is always telling the truthis a fool or worse.

In other words:

YOU: So when you guys make posts in the future, we should all take them with a grain of salt?

ME: Yes.

(Unless you are a fool or worse. And anyone -- including me -- should do the same with your posts past, present and future.)

Dude, you are waaaaaay too serious!

Dude?

Like, whatever.

But keeping in character: 1) you don't know me and 2) too serious according to which rule?