Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.
No, this is not correct. If the speaker doesn't know that a statement is false, the statement is not a lie. Lying requires knowledge that the remark is false and must include an intent to deceive.
----------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
Quote: "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lie
Quote: "1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."
----------------------------------------
See the role of knowledge and intent?
Yes, it requires both -- both knowledge that the statement is false, and an intent to deceive.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
Quote: "Lie : noun : 1 : a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive"
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/lie[noun]
Quote: "Lie : noun : a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a lie>"
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Quote: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
Here's how this works. If you have an idea about how a word is defined that conflicts with another's claim, before objecting, look up the word.
EDIT: also, think for a minute about your claim:
> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.
How can a person be said to have an intent to deceive if he isn't aware that his remark is false? How does he form an intent to deceive using a statement he believes to be true?
You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam-webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly contradict what you claim.
1 :
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)
By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but that's what it says.
> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false.
Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.
Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be charged with perjury. So knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would seem to be important.
> Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.
Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true.
> Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason
Yea, the reason being that those directly contradict what you said.
It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.
The legal definition of lying, and by far the most common one in the everyday world, is that lying requires an intent to deceive and the utterance of a knowing falsehood.
> It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion.
What? By defining "lying" as it is defined in the law and in most references? How so?
> only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote
When I have quoted you, I have done it by cutting and pasting your exact words, as you typed them, directly from the display. How is that twisting your words?
> for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.
It is not "obviously false," it is not false at all. Lying is knowing, intentional falsehood. To lie, one must know that the statement is false.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Quote: "1 : a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
How is that in any way confusing to you?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Quote: "Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)." [emphasis added]
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...
Quote: "When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.
The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction." [emphasis added]
Still confused?
Anyway, this is all a bit too meta. It sounds like a huge misunderstanding and an awkward and somewhat confrontational social situation to me.
I would bet that you say things all the time that you do not know with 100% certainty but which seem likely enough than you assume them to be true. I have never met someone who does not.
For example, have you ever told somebody that you were meeting somebody else when you were not looking right at them as you prepared to sit down for the meeting? What you actually mean is that you believe you will meet them based on your understanding of a conversation you had. You could have heard the wrong day, they could be right about to cancel, your car could break down — you get the idea.