3 ms·
>Second, the distinction between normative and descriptive statements, as you define them, is not always clear-cut. True but does not matter. Those statements,
by 74B5 6y ago
>Second, the distinction between normative and descriptive statements, as you define them, is not always clear-cut.
True but does not matter. Those statements, that fit into the descriptive/normative categories are the key ones of any text, the rest is either allusion or up for the courts to decide.
IMO phrasing like "looks like there might be voter fraud" would not have let to the storm of the capitol.
>"I think all <insert group> are criminals"? Note that the "I think" was implicit in your phrasing
The difference of normative/descriptive statements is the same as subjective/objective ones. "I think ..." already started subjectively and can only have a descriptive component, if its backed up with a statement like "because X is ...".
>"Donald Trump is a criminal."
>The US approach to this is to generally try to avoid having the government be the arbiter of truth
But courts decide who is a criminal or not. And when such a decision is made, you could legally call Trump a criminal.
Experts are frequently heard in court to distinguish it, so why not extend it? It does not have to the ministry of truth (political) but we all require the authority, that tells us the way things are, hopefully in an unbiased way.
- bzbarsky 6y ago> "I think ..." already started subjectively But fundamentally me saying "I think the sky is blue" and "the sky is blue" are the same thing: the latter just has the "I think" implicit but clear to anyone who stops to think for a moment about what it means that _I_ am saying it. Maybe most people don't think, of course. > But courts decide who is a criminal or not. Sort of. The courts decided OJ Simpson is not a criminal by the legal definition. The descriptive statement "OJ Simpson committed a crime" has fairly contested truth value. > hopefully in an unbiased way. I guess the key is that the US approach starts out by admitting that the "unbiased way" is an unattainable fantasy and then works on routing around that problem. The real discussion here is whether the cure is worse than the disease in this case.