Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» I agree that free speech should be protected UNLESS IT IS BASED ON LIES. WHY PROTECT LIARS? Am I the only one who objects to that?
ie. Fauci told us makes do not work unless the person wearing the mask it sick. Then he said the opposite.
They tell us the vaccine is safe but people are dying after getting it. And getting heart conditions, blood clots and other issues.
People claim all Dems are bleeding heart liberals.
Or all Trump supporters are racist/sexist whatever.
People say follow the science. Trump said CA should clean up their forests to prevent fires. They refused and claimed Trump was stupid. CA is now sending out crews to clean up the forests. Who is the liar there?
Why can we not just debate the information available and not attack the people saying the information? Without trying to silence the other opinion.
People used to say "I disagree with what you are saying BUT I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now many say "you have no right to say it." Sad change in my opinion.
This post was edited by my2cents at June 24, 2021 12:03 AM MDT
I am picturing the scenario where lies are not protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech). Is there some punishment for lying? Would it be retro-active?
EG: What science "knows" now, may be disproven in the future. So could somebody punish scientists for what they told us was "true", which is later disproven?
And what about religion?
If we want to "un-protect" lying in politics ... just make political campaigns subject to the same "truth in advertising" laws that any other product has to abide by.
Do you know what a lie is Walt? KNOWINGLY FALSIFYING. Therefore to whit a scientist DOES NOT LIE. Science advancements change our perception of truth. We call that PROGRESS. If you TRULY BELIEVE SOMETHING you are not a LIAR. You are only misinformed or your "beliefs" are ingenuous and not grounded in FACT or REALITY. Your arguments are specious and you know it. Your turn.
You are missing my point Walt. YOU ARE NOT A LIAR IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY IS THE TRUTH.
What you say may well not be true so it will be lie. BUT YOU NOT LIAR. A blind person wouldn't know what "green" is so I don't get the example.
You keep pitching and I'm used to trying to catch but this time they're looping all over the place.
I just looked up LIAR in the dictionary Walt and it simply says "a person who tells lies". It does not particulate whether or not the person thinks it's the truth. So the "clinical" definition as you understand is correct. A liar is a person who tells lies.
HOWEVER.
I still maintain my version is fairer. If you spread what you truly believe is truth and others accept it as such I can't fault them for it. It's like saying there is no excuse for not knowing what you don't know.
I will say that technically you win. But morally? I think my view is fairer to the deluded or mistaken. Okey dokey?
Wouldn't YOU prefer to be given the benefit of the doubt if you said what you believed to be true and it turned out to be a lie? I'm just sayin'.....
This post was edited by RosieG at June 24, 2021 7:43 AM MDT
But is a lie really that "dangerous" if it isn't repeated? If only one person is telling the lie, and everyone knows it's a lie ... or those who think it's the truth don't repeat it ... is it harmful?
If we punish the person who starts a lie or knows it's a lie - but not everyone who repeats it, thinking it is the truth ... the lie would continue to spread, and we wouldn't have really changed anything.
Of course DEGREE OF HARM to others that lie could cause is important to know. ABsolutely!
If I lie to you and tell you I'm 40 when we all know I'm 83 who does that lie harm? I mean it makes me look like a dam* fool but who does it harm? Now if I tell a guy another guy raped his wife and he murder the "rapist" and that was a lie? My oh my!
So the lie itself has to be fleshed out. Someone namedrops famous names but doesn't know any of them. Doesn't harm anyone. Mitigating factors play in too. If the "lie" is told by a mental incompetent who babbles and blathers without really knowing or understand what is being said that matters. Competence matters. Motive matters less. Lies are usually told to cover one's a** when the one did wrong and knows it. Lies can be told to harm others like THE BIG LIE told my Don Guantanamo..I WUZ ROBBED. That puts a target on everyone who didn't vote for him and everyone who says it's a lie and everyone who doesn't kiss his fat a** and roll over. That's a lot of people that could be harmed by the I WUZ ROBBED lie. All. the nutjob crackpot weaponized brainless braindead who go to kill and will and have are triggered the lie of a jacka** fata**. Wouldn't be the first time but it could the worst time. Thank you for your reply Walt. :) Meanwhile in the background coverage of the search and rescue going on at that collapsed Miami condo 159 unaccounted for. How many of them will be found beneath the rubble? You never know do you when your number might be up? :(
That's irrelevant to my point O. Whether Victor or Vanquished TRUTH is the only thing matters. Anything based on a lie is worthless. Just my opinion. Protecting the rights of LIARS? Seriously? Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to thee and thine! :)
But how would you know it is "based on lies"? You would have to have some criteria to make such an identification. Or is your criteria just whether you agree with what is being said or not? In that case, well people you agree with would get "free speech" while people who opposed you would not be entitled to it.
I kinda agree with m2c (HORRORS!), at least with her first point. Who decides?
Trump's Presidency was typified by falsehood, and quite a few of them had to be knowingly so - but not necessarily all, the dude is batsh** crazy so it's possible that he actually believes some of that nonsense.
my2cents 