“The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right place but to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

English writer and socialite Lady Dorothy Nevill spoke these words over a century ago, but an Ohio Congressman should have heeded their wisdom before speaking rashly about a horrifying event in the news. The event in question tore at the heart, shocked the mind, and spawned both anger and indignation. A 10-year-old Ohio girl who was six weeks and three days pregnant had to travel to Indianapolis to get an abortion because Ohio law seemingly prevented her from terminating the pregnancy in her home state. The story, reported by the medical editor of the Indianapolis Star, would have sparked outrage at any time. But its impact was multiplied by the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. The timing of the story as much as its horrifying content led some to wonder if it might be fabricated or at least exaggerated.

It would have been quite understandable for someone in authority to say something to this effect: “We don’t have any confirmation on this story yet, so we can’t say whether it’s true or not. Should it prove to be true, we will seek justice for both the victim and the culprit.” But that’s not what Congressman Jim Jordan said. “Another lie,” he stated on Twitter. “Anyone surprised?”

A few days later, 27-year-old Gerson Fuentes was arrested in connection with the 10-year-old’s rape. Fuentes, who had a relationship with the girl’s family, is being held in Franklin County jail without bail. According to court records, he admitted to sexually assaulting the girl two times between January and May 12.

I have no comment on the case itself beyond wishing the girl a full recovery –both physically and emotionally — and a just punishment for her rapist. But Jordan’s response provides a lesson on the dangers of “inflexible” language.

Just what is ‘Inflexible” language? To me, it’s words or phrases that anchor the writer or speaker to a fixed position from which there is no escape, no backtracking. Let’s take Jordan’s assertion that the story was a “lie.” The word “lie” is not used for a misstatement, an honest error, or an exaggeration. It denotes a falsehood told by someone who knows it is false but who tells it anyway for selfish and/or malicious purposes. There is no leeway with a lie. The stain it puts on someone can rarely be completely washed off. When someone hurls that accusation at someone else, there is no escape route if the lie turns out to be true, with the accuser being stained even more than the accused.

I’m not sure if Jordan himself used the word “deny” with respect to the 10-year-old rape victim’s pregnancy, but that word was used by others to describe his response. “Deny” is another inflexible word. When someone denies something, he asserts unequivocally that it did not happen. There is no hesitancy, no qualifications, no nuances, and no escape with the word “deny.” Accordingly, that word carries the same dangers as the word “lie.” If the claim being denied proves to be true, the denier will suffer a loss of credibility and, if he happens to be a political figure, a possible loss at the polls.

Let me stress I am not saying inflexible words should never be used. They can be used when the speaker or writer has irrefutable proof that what is being asserted or denied is true. But given that the average person must process a flood of claims, arguments, and messages coming from a multitude of sources everyday, maybe we should relax that criterion just a little. Consider this: Inflexible words can be used when the person using them has persuasive evidence that they are true.

Let’s take this as example: Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential election. “Won” is an inflexible word in many situations, especially those where a quantifiable system exists for verifying a win. Such a system is in place for U.S. Presidential elections. It centers on canvassing in which officials verify, process, and count every single ballot before including it in the final election tally. State laws ensure security, specifying everything from who participates in the canvass, to when it starts and ends, what information it contains, and what is open to the public. The official results that came from this system showed President Biden winning by about 7 million popular votes and 306-232 votes in the Electoral College. Those results provide the rationale — the persuasive evidence — for the inflexible word “won.”

Now, let’s take the opposing position. Donald Trump was cheated out of a second term. The word “cheated” is even more inflexible than “won.” You might cheat subtly or blatantly, but you can’t semi-cheat or sort of cheat. So where was there cheating in the 2020 Presidential election? Maybe I missed something, but there didn’t seem to be any. At most, there was some suspicion cast upon a new type of voting machine, but no evidence those machines awarded more votes to Biden than he deserved. Maybe the claim of cheating would have merited serious consideration if a hardcore Red state such as Oklahoma or Wyoming had gone to Biden, but that didn’t happen. The persuasive evidence is missing here, and accordingly, those saying Biden won because of cheating seem irrational at best and subversive at worst.

Going back to Congressman Jordan, it remains to be seen if he pays a price for his unwise use of inflexible language. Given the conservative make-up of his district, he may well be re-elected anyway. But I hope in the future, he will be more careful with his language and use “inflexible” words only when he has solid evidence to back them up.