4 ms·

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.
        win311fwg 2mo ago
        > Literally no one, aside yourself, believes that it’s impossible to communicate I don't know, there is pretty strong evidence in this discussion that we are unable to communicate. Your apparent opinion of I am saying continues to show to be incorrect over and over — and I'm sure that goes both ways. In fact, it seems evident that, deep down, you already realize this as you have stopped even trying to add anything of your own to the discussion, outsourcing to the words of others. Poor form to not be able to speak to something yourself, but I can appreciate that your emotions are starting to run wild on realizing that the world isn't as simple as you originally imagined. But, as before, I likely have the wrong opinion about what you are trying to say. There is no objective way to measure language. QED.

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.
      - win311fwg 2mo ago
        > Literally no one, aside yourself, believes that it’s impossible to communicate I don't know, there is pretty strong evidence in this discussion that we are unable to communicate. Your apparent opinion of I am saying continues to show to be incorrect over and over — and I'm sure that goes both ways. In fact, it seems evident that, deep down, you already realize this as you have stopped even trying to add anything of your own to the discussion, outsourcing to the words of others. Poor form to not be able to speak to something yourself, but I can appreciate that your emotions are starting to run wild on realizing that the world isn't as simple as you originally imagined. But, as before, I likely have the wrong opinion about what you are trying to say. There is no objective way to measure language. QED.