Choice without a choice: 15 minutes of "fame"

It is a logical mistake or even a manipulative move to give a person "a choice without choice", as e.g. Dr.* House has shown in one of his dialogues with a colleague:
"So, are you gonna whine about this first and then do what I told you to, or just go and do it right now?"

*(actor, not a real doctor; this note was added just in case somebody has a way too wild imagination; thanks for a good point, gordon-gekko)

Basically, both alternatives include "a choice" of following Dr. House's order, the only actually changing factor is the meaningless whine part. This is a maneuvre hidden behind a logical mistake of having only the choices given. -> "Think outside the box", eh? :)

Another simple question falls into the very same category:
"So, have you quit drinking whiskey first thing in the morning?"
Answer can be only "yes" or "no" with no other comments or explanation.

This is just a manipulation to make person admit that s/he still does start or at least has in the past started her/his morning with a whiskey shot. Even an absolutist will have to "admit" s/he has been drinking in the morning if s/he has to reply strictly "yes" or "no" - that's the trick.

What do we see in lizard's latest blog about a suggestion to "prove something that was told earlier to be true" using a very reliable device such as a lie detector used by a "an ex CIA agent" (very believable indeed) and "just to make sure" to also broadcast the whole process?

It's nothing but a(nother) manipulation aiming to label a person whether she says "yes" or "no" to lizard's "invitation". Accepting an invitation will be a sign of will to do as lizards suggest even though the person being asked does not feel the need to go through the whole process just to prove something irrelevant to a total and obviously twisted no-life stranger.

Having sex with a trusted person in a semi-public place once or twice a year does not equal a desire to step up in front of cameras and prove to the world that it actually happened by taking a test with a device known as only 90% reliable. E.g. a very emotional or excited person might fail the test and even be labeled a liar - for all the wrong reasons.

Declining an invitation has already been implied as a fear of failing the test because of knowing of having to tell the lies as truth. But it is really so that declination equals surrender? Thinking it sure is is actually falling into a hidden trap. Luckily, not all traps are set by professionals, and amateurs thinking of themselves as professionals make the funniest mistakes anyway. There is always a secret choice number 3: not falling into the trap by simply questioning the hidden agenda of the one who mentioned having the doubt in the first place.

Proving is another factor that catches an eye. If there is a doubt, someone will have to prove it wrong, right? Incorrect. The doubt only lives inside the head of the one who doubts something, and because freedom of speech gives people right to questions pretty much anything, anyone can doubt anything and even everything.

I'm sure you've all seen or heard of people saying that "government is watching us through our televisions" or "I don't trust the system". It's their right to doubt things. No need to prove them wrong: it's their world, their beliefs, the right to be a little... cuckoo.

To prove this kind of doubt wrong is a duty of the very same person who has the doubt in the first place. Why? Easy: because it is his or her problem in the first place and nobody else's.

For example, I tell my friend I doubt she actually paid the parking ticket she got last week. So? My friends know she paid it and thus it is unnecessary for her to prove it to me by e.g. showing me the receipt because I might just as well say she has probably forged it.

Is my doubt relevant to my friend? Not really, because she knows the ticket is paid and that's pretty much it. Unless, of course, a friend of mine is insecure in a way that will force her to lose her sleep and/or appetite unless she has found a way to prove to me that my thought of her actions are incorrect.

A sane and stable person would probably question my motive for doubting her words or actions I have no realistic idea about. Then it would be me having to explain why I think she is s liar, and the whole show would be over in no time because the manipulation would be turned right back at me.

Proving something to the whole wide world is something e.g. scientists have to do when their inventions or discoveries are questioned. Ordinary people do not need to prove any details of their lives, especially to strangers - unless, of course, they are e.g. suspected of a serious crime and authorities ask them to prove their innosence. Otherwise, anyone can feel free to doubt anything for their own reasons or no reason at all.

So, if any further questions, please ask.

And lizard creature: good luck with your next try! ;)