The answer of how one culture would appreciate another is always "it depends." The fine nuanced differences in our concepts of what a lie is and how good or bad that lie ensure the answer is never clear cut. However, I do think they would appreciate the raw audacity of telling a lie so thoroughly that even you, yourself, believe it! I would expect the other culture to appreciate the audacity of apparently lying about how acceptable lying is, and expect them to applaud them convincing themselves in this lie. I mean, that's serious dedication to the cause!
You ask for examples, and one example always shines out for me, deep in the heart of the scientific community. I love science; I think its a great process! I regularly entrust it with my life because it's one of the best tools we have for many things. But there's an overstep which often occurs which is important enough to me that I'd call it out as one of those specific examples of lying you are looking for.
In the past, I've argued a very careful line with respect to science and magic. I like to argue that they can coexist, but to do so I require science to hold to its truest self, founded on the scientific method. If you dig deep enough into the philosophy, you find that science does not tell you how the world actually works, a subject called ontology, it tells you what you can know about the world, epistemology, and in particular it models observed behaviors very well.
If you recall your schooling, the scientific method never actually proved anything. If you wanted to show that planets revolve around the sun, you would first assume a "null hypothesis" which refutes the status quo. Your null hypothesis would be that planets revolve around the Earth. You would then go develop a test which could show that it is exceedingly unlikely that the observations you saw matched the null hypothesis. You would then declare that whole hypothesis unlikely, leaving only your hypothesis that planets revolve around the sun still standing. However, note that we never actually proved our claim. We merely showed the existing claim did not do well at predicting things, and our model does better.
This is the powerhouse at the core of science which drives it forward. It never actually proves anything to be true, but rather proves that a bunch of other hypotheses are false, until we run out of human creativity and admit that we can't think of any other hypothesis. We then engage in abduction, a mode of thought similar to deduction and induction where one assumes the most likely hypothesis is actually true, and announce that we have proven that planets revolve around the sun. This frees science from philosophical quagmires which give other epistemological processes pause and lets it plumb the mysteries of the universe with abandon. And it's darn good at it!
It turns out that abduction is tricky. Philosophically, it is a field of landmines waiting to go off. This is uncomfortable for many scientists and science minded individuals. How can this process which has had such extraordinary success as to bring us semiconductors, land a man on the moon, and send probes beyond the solar system be anything but perfect?
As a result, we skip over this step. We say "light is made up of photons" when what we really mean is the more lengthy "light is well modeled as though it is made up of photons." It seems like such a little white lie, and it's so much easier to say. I mean, realistically speaking, it's unlikely that we will ever find out that light isn't made of photons, so we can just claim to know the "truth" about reality right? Well, not really. Enter wave-particle duality. Light is not a wave; it is not a particle. It is something different that is sometimes well modeled as a wave, and sometimes well modeled as a particle. We can even capture this something with quantum mechanics and say that it is well modeled as a superposition of wave packets (note that I took care to say it is "well modeled" rather than "it is").
Then, we go to the Physics.SE forum, where countless people are baffled by wave-particle duality. They say "how can it be a wave and a particle at the same time? Does it alternate" and the only true answer is "light is neither a wave nor a particle." But that really bothers people because they were told for years that light was made up of photons, and that that was the truth. I spend a fair bit of time there cleaning up the mess we make when we suggest science can tell us the truth when, in reality, it is only capable of pointing us in the right direction.
So I stood on my soap box here for six paragraphs, and finally worked my way around to lying. There are many scientists who are very familiar with the issue I bring up, and are honest to themselves about the limits of science. They rationalize their act by saying "well, within the context of science, we all know what prove means, and I agree that it does not mean the same thing as "prove" does in mathematics." Then there are those who honestly believe the lie they tell. They truly believe that this scientific method, which never once made a claim that it offered truth, is the only source of truth in the universe.
And thus, this is the lie we tell our students every year. I'd like to think those liars would actually be impressed at what lengths we will go to to convince people that this lie is reality. We will even go so far as to convince ourselves that this is true, even though if you actually dig through all of the processes of science, none of them ever make that claim. We teach our children to not question the mighty magic of the scientific method that lets it mysteriously define the reality around us. And then we wonder why religious individuals take offense at our teachings. And then we wonder why it's so hard to get people into STEM: the higher order classes are continuously having to spend so much time unteaching what was already taught!
