5 ms·

Then, we're just back to OP's conundrum: "Everything is opinion." I'll say grass is green and you'll say grass is red, and there can be no fact because they dif

Then, we're just back to OP's conundrum: "Everything is opinion." I'll say grass is green and you'll say grass is red, and there can be no fact because they differ.

hnlmorg 2mo ago
Not really no. Some things can be proven while some cannot. The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable. My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats). And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News that promote flat out lies. It’s often not even an interpretation of the truth. It’s shared as an opinion but the evidence clearly proves it’s just lies presented as facts. And I really wish there were criminal charges for broadcasting blatant lies. Not just in America, but most of the developed world where populist-propaganda is used to brainwash gullible voters.
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  Communication cannot be scientifically measured. Someone's expression being a "blatant lie" can only ever be an opinion, fundamentally.
  - hnlmorg 2mo ago
    Broadcasters absolutely have a responsibility to ensure they communicate truthful statements in exactly the same way that any other profession has a responsibility to ensure their output is correct.
    - win311fwg 2mo ago
      Fundamentally impossible. Communication is completely made up. It cannot be measured scientifically. Consider the statement: "Cows live on the moon". It is 100% true, although you may not see it that way if you misinterpret what is said. It's only a lie to the extent that your opinion says it is even though in actuality it is the truth.
      - hnlmorg 2mo ago
        That’s some serious mental gymnastics you’re applying there but that’s not really how society works. We, as a society, fully understand the concept of truthful and untruthful statements. We learn it as a child and get scalded when we lie. We depend on this understanding in law, courts, contracts, and commerce. We understand it when educators teach and when requesting services of others. If you want to claim that communication cannot be truthful nor verifiable at any level, then society would fail to function because the literal point of communication is to share an information. Now if you wanted to make a philosophical point about proving an intent to lie, or our perceptions of reality, rather than communication as a medium, then that’s a different topic (and one I discussed elsewhere in this thread). But for your exact argument presented, we already have millennia of past precedence to prove that communication is expected to have truthful statements.
        win311fwg 2mo ago
        Right, society functions on opinion, but there is no scientific basis for it. Its just making shit up and running with it. You aren't charging someone for lying. Detecting the utterance of a lie is fundamentally impossible as there is no objective way to measure language. Language itself is just opinion. You'd, instead, be charging them for them for going against your opinion. No mental gymnastics needed. Its just the simple reality.
        hnlmorg 2mo ago
        Again, society is literally built around the exact opposite of the premise you’re arguing https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court https://www.uklegalguides.com/what-is-fraud/ https://www.uklegalguides.com/what-is-fraud/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Truth_Pledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Truth_Pledge https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8n99727lvo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8n99727lvo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton And they are literally hundreds of thousands of other examples I could share where communication is understood to have provable truthful states. Literally no one, aside yourself, believes that it’s impossible to communicate a fact nor that lies doesn’t exist.

Then, we're just back to OP's conundrum: "Everything is opinion." I'll say grass is green and you'll say grass is red, and there can be no fact because they differ.

hnlmorg 2mo ago

Not really no. Some things can be proven while some cannot. The colour of grass is something that’s scientifically measurable. My point is that some broadcasters are very strict about sticking to the facts. Some will misrepresent those facts but not technically lie (eg discuss statistics that favour their partisan view but don’t share the full context behind those stats). And then there’s broadcasters like Fox News that promote flat out lies. It’s often not even an interpretation of the truth. It’s shared as an opinion but the evidence clearly proves it’s just lies presented as facts. And I really wish there were criminal charges for broadcasting blatant lies. Not just in America, but most of the developed world where populist-propaganda is used to brainwash gullible voters.

win311fwg 2mo ago
Communication cannot be scientifically measured. Someone's expression being a "blatant lie" can only ever be an opinion, fundamentally.
- hnlmorg 2mo ago
  Broadcasters absolutely have a responsibility to ensure they communicate truthful statements in exactly the same way that any other profession has a responsibility to ensure their output is correct.
  - win311fwg 2mo ago
    Fundamentally impossible. Communication is completely made up. It cannot be measured scientifically. Consider the statement: "Cows live on the moon". It is 100% true, although you may not see it that way if you misinterpret what is said. It's only a lie to the extent that your opinion says it is even though in actuality it is the truth.
    - hnlmorg 2mo ago
      That’s some serious mental gymnastics you’re applying there but that’s not really how society works. We, as a society, fully understand the concept of truthful and untruthful statements. We learn it as a child and get scalded when we lie. We depend on this understanding in law, courts, contracts, and commerce. We understand it when educators teach and when requesting services of others. If you want to claim that communication cannot be truthful nor verifiable at any level, then society would fail to function because the literal point of communication is to share an information. Now if you wanted to make a philosophical point about proving an intent to lie, or our perceptions of reality, rather than communication as a medium, then that’s a different topic (and one I discussed elsewhere in this thread). But for your exact argument presented, we already have millennia of past precedence to prove that communication is expected to have truthful statements.
      - win311fwg 2mo ago
        Right, society functions on opinion, but there is no scientific basis for it. Its just making shit up and running with it. You aren't charging someone for lying. Detecting the utterance of a lie is fundamentally impossible as there is no objective way to measure language. Language itself is just opinion. You'd, instead, be charging them for them for going against your opinion. No mental gymnastics needed. Its just the simple reality.
        hnlmorg 2mo ago
        Again, society is literally built around the exact opposite of the premise you’re arguing https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court https://www.uklegalguides.com/what-is-fraud/ https://www.uklegalguides.com/what-is-fraud/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Truth_Pledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Truth_Pledge https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8n99727lvo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8n99727lvo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton And they are literally hundreds of thousands of other examples I could share where communication is understood to have provable truthful states. Literally no one, aside yourself, believes that it’s impossible to communicate a fact nor that lies doesn’t exist.