|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 22:06:23 GMT
So what? They shouldn't be able to in a democracy So, you think someone who makes a decision on the basis of a lie has made a free choice? Do you think people are free only when they are exclusively told the truth? That seems like a very unrealistic standard to me. "We only have a democracy after I have silenced all the liars"Such a transparently dishonest and cynical notion. So , either an idiot or a liar. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 10, 2023 22:08:49 GMT
So you want unelected Judges to control what elected Parliamentarians say? ..well it's a view I suppose..  Yes. Those seeking to be elected or have their policies put into effect shouldn't be allowed to tell lies about facts. They can make as many false predictions as they please, but they can't lie about current facts. It's not a big ask. The Swiss system is a gammon favourite, and that's how things work there. Who lies about current facts? - give me a specific example. I'll give you one - it's something that has exercised you many times in the past. Is this something your unelected Judges would ban?  |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 10, 2023 22:10:53 GMT
LOL, ffs Einy will you ever stop blubbing about Brexit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 10, 2023 22:16:10 GMT
LOL, ffs Einy will you ever stop blubbing about Brexit? I take three hours off every second week. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 10, 2023 22:19:04 GMT
Yes. Those seeking to be elected or have their policies put into effect shouldn't be allowed to tell lies about facts. They can make as many false predictions as they please, but they can't lie about current facts. It's not a big ask. The Swiss system is a gammon favourite, and that's how things work there. Who lies about current facts? - give me a specific example. I'll give you one - it's something that has exercised you many times in the past. Is this something your unelected Judges would ban? Are you capable of distinguishing between a prediction and a statement of current fact, Doc? It's something of a necessity if you are to understand the law. The law won't void an agreement just because of a false prediction. It takes the view that everyone should know that predictions, relating to events that haven't occurred, are not statements of fact. Whereas, it will act on misleading statements about current facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 10, 2023 22:20:48 GMT
So, you think someone who makes a decision on the basis of a lie has made a free choice? Do you think people are free only when they are exclusively told the truth? That seems like a very unrealistic standard to me. "We only have a democracy after I have silenced all the liars"Such a transparently dishonest and cynical notion. So , either an idiot or a liar. A choice made on false information is not a free choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 10, 2023 22:22:12 GMT
Yes. Those seeking to be elected or have their policies put into effect shouldn't be allowed to tell lies about facts. They can make as many false predictions as they please, but they can't lie about current facts. It's not a big ask. The Swiss system is a gammon favourite, and that's how things work there. Who lies about current facts? - give me a specific example. I'll give you one - it's something that has exercised you many times in the past. Is this something your unelected Judges would ban? Have I missed your post where you explain your criteria for locking threads, Doc? They may be perfectly reasonable, but it would be helpful to know what they are. If you're going to lock a thread one day on the basis of a particular kind of behaviour and then indulge in that behaviour yourself the next day, confusion is inevitable. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 22:42:31 GMT
Do you think people are free only when they are exclusively told the truth? That seems like a very unrealistic standard to me. "We only have a democracy after I have silenced all the liars"Such a transparently dishonest and cynical notion. So , either an idiot or a liar. A choice made on false information is not a free choice. As I pointed out, this is a daft and cynical standard. An important aspect of democracy is that a truth isn't enforced or official - ie the public are allowed to freely converse and are then left to draw their own conclusions freely. Many on the left feel this is deeply unfair and leaves them with a disadvantage. The only alternative to allowing lies would be to set up an official truth and rid the world of lies - which is where the lunatics come in. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 10, 2023 22:53:52 GMT
A choice made on false information is not a free choice. As I pointed out, this is a daft and cynical standard. An important aspect of democracy is that a truth isn't enforced or official - ie the public are allowed to freely converse and are then left to draw their own conclusions freely. Many on the left feel this is deeply unfair and leaves them with a disadvantage. The only alternative to allowing lies would be to set up an official truth and rid the world of lies - which is where the lunatics come in. Okay, you think 'truth' is an opinion. That's fine. Some of our 'truths' are mere social constructs. However, I think that most people would agree that the statement that 350 million was being absorbed by EU commitments every week was untruthful, given rebates, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 23:30:30 GMT
As I pointed out, this is a daft and cynical standard. An important aspect of democracy is that a truth isn't enforced or official - ie the public are allowed to freely converse and are then left to draw their own conclusions freely. Many on the left feel this is deeply unfair and leaves them with a disadvantage. The only alternative to allowing lies would be to set up an official truth and rid the world of lies - which is where the lunatics come in. Okay, you think 'truth' is an opinion. That's fine. A straw-man. See? even you lie. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 10, 2023 23:32:06 GMT
Okay, you think 'truth' is an opinion. That's fine. A straw-man. See? even you lie. No idea what you're talking about. Are you saying you think the 'truth' is an opinion or aren't you? Or are you just making the outlandish claim that there are no empirically verifiable facts? Something else, maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 11, 2023 0:06:51 GMT
A straw-man. See? even you lie. No idea what you're talking about. Are you saying you think the 'truth' is an opinion or aren't you? No i'm not saying that. Democracy is a way of avoiding a literal fight about what the truth is. In a democracy, we all get to talk and listen and then we raise our hands and agree to be bound by the winner (them are the rules). If you then impose a process for deciding and enforcing the official truth upon this process, you negate the political raison d'être of the process and we all go back to having a fight about your rulership (ie the authority that gets to decide the truth). Presumably, once the truth has been vetted and enforced, a voter's good faith decision can be (more or less) presumed? Why would someone acting in good faith vote the wrong way when they have been presented only the truth? Surely, the wrong votes can be ignored as bad faith - spoiled papers? It sounds comical and deranged but unfortunately this sort of thinking isn't that uncommon. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Sept 11, 2023 0:14:48 GMT
No idea what you're talking about. Are you saying you think the 'truth' is an opinion or aren't you? No i'm not saying that. Democracy is a way of avoiding a literal fight about what the truth is. In a democracy, we all get to talk and listen and then we raise our hands and agree to be bound by the winner (them are the rules). If you then add a process for deciding and enforcing the official truth upon the process, you negate the political raison d'être of the process. Presumably, once the truth has been vetted and enforced, a voter's good faith decision can be (more or less) presumed, Why would someone acting in good faith vote the wrong way when they have been presented only the truth? Surely, the wrong votes can be ignored as bad faith - spoilt papers? It sounds comical and deranged but unfortunately this sort of thinking isn't that uncommon. Sounds like you're conflating opinion with facts. I don't know what you mean by 'official truth'. If a politican claims that £5 billion is being sent to the EU every week, that statement is capable of empirical verification. It is not mere opinion. The Swiss courts concern themselves with statements about empirical facts, as do the UK courts. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 11, 2023 6:27:10 GMT
Who lies about current facts? - give me a specific example. I'll give you one - it's something that has exercised you many times in the past. Is this something your unelected Judges would ban? Are you capable of distinguishing between a prediction and a statement of current fact, Doc? It's something of a necessity if you are to understand the law. The law won't void an agreement just because of a false prediction. It takes the view that everyone should know that predictions, relating to events that haven't occurred, are not statements of fact. Whereas, it will act on misleading statements about current facts. So as I said - give us a specific example. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 11, 2023 6:28:27 GMT
Have I missed your post where you explain your criteria for locking threads, Doc? They may be perfectly reasonable, but it would be helpful to know what they are. If you're going to lock a thread one day on the basis of a particular kind of behaviour and then indulge in that behaviour yourself the next day, confusion is inevitable. I have already told you how moderation decisions are reached. If you have a complaint then please contact Admin. |
|
