Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?

[manifold]

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

Good god but you're a fucking retard.


Seriously.

Ain't that the truth, although perhaps not quite a fact.

 

[MarcATL]

No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.

Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

I love it when science proves people are idiots.



The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN

Look at that, not only does this prove that people believe different truths based on their political ideology, it proves that more education makes no difference at all in those beliefs.



And you are intellectually incapable of recognizing either because you believe what you believe, and reject everything else as a lie.



Only if you are willing to listen.



If it can be proven false it is not a fact.

But thanks for making my point for me.

An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.

You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.

As opposed to you and your ilk that think things that can be proven to be false are facts?

Snap out of it!!!

Lovely advice. I suggest you look in a mirror and yell it until the guy you see there recognizes reality.

Let's go with that definition then, I'll give you that.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com

That being said, there's only ONE truth.

It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.

The fact that many people seem to believe and/or be comfortable with two different realities aka truths, is evidence that they aren't based in reality themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Good job.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

There are facts and there are lies.

Facts can be proven to be true.

For instance, it's a fact that Prosser choked his fellow judge Bradley. That's a fact. As it's provable to be either true or false.

An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.

You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.

Snap out of it!!!

Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.

Of course truth is subject to interpretation. That's not even debatable. Don't attempt it.

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

Actually, Opinion can be truth.

For example, it's my opinion Eliminating free speech and empowering the government to fine/punish those who the politicians decide are "lying" is a stupid idea.

And it is a stupid idea.

Truth is things are they were, things as they are, and things as they will be. The problem is that men are imperfect, and dont see clearly so don't see the facts clearly. They can disagree and interpret facts differently without being untrue.

But you don't take that into account. You want to give the politicians and bueacrats a power that can easily be abused and misused to take out any of their political enemies. Not exactly a smart move there. I trust myself to determine whats true and whats false alot more than i trust some politician or bueacrat to exercise that power honestly.

Tyranny can only come about if we remain ignorant. And we will if any law like this was ever passed. It would silence speech faster than a donut would disappear in a police station.

 

[Avatar4321]

Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack. The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."

It's "SHOULD fines be imposed..." It's called a question. That's why if followed by a question MARK, or didn't they teach that when you were in school?

I posed it as a debating question because I think it's a sad and bad thing that the media in this country has become a mockery of what it once was. Citizens who could once have a measure of trust in what was broadcast on TV are now routinely manipulated by multiple powerful forces which seem to have have far more interest in clouding the issues than they do in elucidating them.

Are you bothering to follow your own posts. You're arguing for imposing fines on people. You're arguing for silencing people.

Yes. The title asks a question, but you picked a position and you are arguing with it.

 

[MarcATL]

I hope you people who argue to be lied to also argue the EXACT same way for people who want to marry the same sex.

 

[Avatar4321]

I hope you people who argue to be lied to also argue the EXACT same way for people who want to marry the same sex.

We will most certainly argue for those who want to marry the same sex to have the freedom of speech to do so. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

See, unlike you we don't have a problem supporting the rights of people simply because we disagree with them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That being said, there's only ONE truth.

That which utterith from the mouth of Obama....

It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.

Perception equals reality.

 

[MarcATL]

I hope you people who argue to be lied to also argue the EXACT same way for people who want to marry the same sex.

We will most certainly argue for those who want to marry the same sex to have the freedom of speech to do so. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

See, unlike you we don't have a problem supporting the rights of people simply because we disagree with them.

Uhm, yeah......riiiiiiight.

 

[Mustang]

neat idea but impossible to actually do

It's not impossible. Touching your elbow to your nose is impossible.

 

[Avatar4321]

neat idea but impossible to actually do

It's not impossible. Touching your elbow to your nose is impossible.

not if your nose has been cut off from your body... or your arms.

 

[Avatar4321]

neat idea but impossible to actually do

Fining/punishing/prosecuting people for exercising their right to free speech is a neat idea?

 

[daveman]

Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.

Of course truth is subject to interpretation. That's not even debatable. Don't attempt it.

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

On the contrary. For instance, I think it's the truth that you're an idiot. I have evidence to back it up, too.

You do not agree, however.

So...we have two people with opposite views of the truthfulness of an assertion.

Do you really want the government to weigh in here? What if they decide that you are indeed an idiot?

 

[daveman]

Well, let's just read what you wrote, shall we?

...should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV? For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.​

1. Who decides which claims are lies?

2. Who levies the fines?

3. Who enforces the no-appearance ban?

Nice catch. In the OP he suggests that the employer also be subject to the fine and then later says that the employer would be the one to issue the fines.

That's a backpedal fail if ever there was one!

He really hasn't given this much thought, nor is he likely to.

 

[MarcATL]

Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.

Of course truth is subject to interpretation. That's not even debatable. Don't attempt it.

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

On the contrary. For instance, I think it's the truth that you're an idiot. I have evidence to back it up, too.

You do not agree, however.

So...we have two people with opposite views of the truthfulness of an assertion.

Do you really want the government to weigh in here? What if they decide that you are indeed an idiot?

Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

See...?

I rest my case.

 

[daveman]

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

On the contrary. For instance, I think it's the truth that you're an idiot. I have evidence to back it up, too.

You do not agree, however.

So...we have two people with opposite views of the truthfulness of an assertion.

Do you really want the government to weigh in here? What if they decide that you are indeed an idiot?

Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

See...?

I rest my case.

Not at all. As I said, I have evidence. You have offered no conflicting evidence, either.


But let's try something else. Did the stimulus succeed, or did it fail?

 

[Avatar4321]

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

On the contrary. For instance, I think it's the truth that you're an idiot. I have evidence to back it up, too.

You do not agree, however.

So...we have two people with opposite views of the truthfulness of an assertion.

Do you really want the government to weigh in here? What if they decide that you are indeed an idiot?

Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

See...?

I rest my case.

Again, opinions can be truth. And that's a fact.

Looks like you are disagreeing.

Wow you mean two people are disagreeing about whether this is true or not.

Kind of destroys your argument.

 

[MarcATL]

On the contrary. For instance, I think it's the truth that you're an idiot. I have evidence to back it up, too.

You do not agree, however.

So...we have two people with opposite views of the truthfulness of an assertion.

Do you really want the government to weigh in here? What if they decide that you are indeed an idiot?

Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

See...?

I rest my case.

Not at all. As I said, I have evidence. You have offered no conflicting evidence, either.


But let's try something else. Did the stimulus succeed, or did it fail?

You are such a damn fool.

Listen fool, you saying "I have evidence" is not providing evidence.

What a fool!!!

Put up or shut up fool!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

Assumes facts not in evidence and calls for speculation.

Dismissed.

 

[daveman]

Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

See...?

I rest my case.

Not at all. As I said, I have evidence. You have offered no conflicting evidence, either.


But let's try something else. Did the stimulus succeed, or did it fail?

You are such a damn fool.

Listen fool, you saying "I have evidence" is not providing evidence.

What a fool!!!

Put up or shut up fool!

Okay.

The science is settled. The debate is over. You are indeed an idiot.

 

[Mustang]

Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack. The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."

It's "SHOULD fines be imposed..." It's called a question. That's why if followed by a question MARK, or didn't they teach that when you were in school?

I posed it as a debating question because I think it's a sad and bad thing that the media in this country has become a mockery of what it once was. Citizens who could once have a measure of trust in what was broadcast on TV are now routinely manipulated by multiple powerful forces which seem to have have far more interest in clouding the issues than they do in elucidating them.

Are you bothering to follow your own posts. You're arguing for imposing fines on people. You're arguing for silencing people.

Yes. The title asks a question, but you picked a position and you are arguing with it.

Nonsense. This is a debating forum. I argue that it could be done while other people say it can't be done or shouldn't be done.

Additionally, the notion that people are someone "silenced" would tend to give the impression that they're not allowed to be speak some fundamental truth in much the way that the citizens of the Soviet Union were not allowed to speak the truth while the gov't controlled the TV stations and newspapers. But preventing someone from misrepresenting truth across the public airwaves is not a form of censorship unless a person places a higher value on false propaganda than they do on honest discourse. In such cases, anyone who defends broadcasting statements over the air that are factually untrue is someone who probably has a secret fondness for the old Soviet Union and WND both. I don't like either one of them.