My gut tells me liars. I despise Ron Paul, primarily because of his insincere repeated comments: "Let charities replace entitlements. They are better at it anyway." He knows if you give the people a trillion dollar tax cut, they will not forward it to charities, who will then forward it to the poor. He knows charities cannot keep up with demand, even with entitlements currently in place. He is just lying. I prefer simpletons, like Rick Perry, who believe they are God's ambassador and at least may strive for righteousness. I prefer the benighted to the corrupt.
I say someone who lies to cover up an "error" is the worst type of person.
This isn't the greatest discussion question - I'd like to hear from someone who would say a lie is better than an error.A lie is intentional and an error is unintentional.
I imagine most people see this as a question of morality, which is fine. If you measure a deed by motivation, you can't deny that a lie is worse.But from the perspective of one trying to share the truth, I find it easier to deal with a liar than one who is in error. A liar will change his story when confronted with the truth, but someone who has made an error is liable to stubbornly hold their ground.What's more, many lies are far less harmful than most errors. A lie meant to comfort is certainly better than an error that harms. Many lies achieve important things, but I know of few errors which have resulted in anything good (though I know of a few, most notably in scientific study and observation).
If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.