I think he’s more trying to craft a false equivalence where he’s saying because all politicians lie occasionally we should draw no distinction between those that lie a little and those who lie constantly.
Only until they learn that they will be caught and struck out, then they would stop. Why are you arguing so hard for maintaining lies in politics?
I realize what he is doing, but it still comes down to an argument that we should protect lies in politics. He incorrectly assumes that because politicians that we like lie sometimes as well that if that is pointed out to us that we would be okay with politicians lying. I am not. I would rather set up a system that punishes all politicians for lying to the public. I'm perfectly okay with that. I am willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, even if that is against my current beliefs.I think he’s more trying to craft a false equivalence where he’s saying because all politicians lie occasionally we should draw no distinction between those that lie a little and those who lie constantly.
The problem I see is that conservatives have different brains that make it harder for them to be truthful. Lying to yourself has survival advantages. Look at the power of their group think. But this all amounts to the potential for self destruction too, because there is a real reality and a delusional one they create. A fish that looks for water will never find it. You can’t know wet if you don’t know dry, or truth if you live a lie.I realize what he is doing, but it still comes down to an argument that we should protect lies in politics. He incorrectly assumes that because politicians that we like lie sometimes as well that if that is pointed out to us that we would be okay with politicians lying. I am not. I would rather set up a system that punishes all politicians for lying to the public. I'm perfectly okay with that. I am willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, even if that is against my current beliefs.
In order to accomplish that they would probably have to stop allowing 90% of politicians of both parties from having air time.
What would you do to save your country from 'this kind of evil', where liberals would actually prevent truth form being spoken if they got too much control? Wouldn't you do anything to keep that from happening? Wouldn't you even lie or try to keep liberals from going to the poles, anything to keep them from getting a majority? What if they were to pack the courts and allow babies to be murdered for centuries? What if you were of the Christian faith and told you had to worship the devil. You are asking me to believe you could be that evil, that you would let them lie to the world about their motives and ambitions in the name of some socialist heaven? I just don't think you would risk that happening whatever it took. God knows the truth and will judge you for your sins. Remember the Grand Inquisition where the real truth of the iniquitous was made manifest. Look what has happened to the world since God's Laws have been abandoned. The snake speaks with a democratic tongue.
Well, maybe. But the same activity probably incited a lot of people, people who are not inclined to detect a lie when they hear one. So, broadcasting those things that occurred at rallies (i.e. not originally broadcasted) should be done in such a way as to demystify, to undress the prevarication going on. This is done sometimes. Not as often as I'd like, based on my limited experience. The same with the tweets.Per the bolded...It's a double edge sword. Obviously somebody blatantly lying on TV to manipulate people is something you rather not broadcast. But...broadcasting it will reinforce what a blatant liar this person is and continues to be and is someone who can't be trusted.
Only until they learn that they will be caught and struck out, then they would stop. Why are you arguing so hard for maintaining lies in politics?
I think he’s more trying to craft a false equivalence where he’s saying because all politicians lie occasionally we should draw no distinction between those that lie a little and those who lie constantly.
I have. If you are not arguing for maintaining lies in politics then you should refine your argument, because it is hard to read it any other way. When you argue against a point, it must be assumed that you are arguing for the counter point unless you make a different point. You never make a point, so the only position that your argument can support is the counter point, which in this case is that we should not work to remove lies from politics.I'm not supporting lies in politics.
Go back and read my post.
I have. If you are not arguing for maintaining lies in politics then you should refine your argument, because it is hard to read it any other way. When you argue against a point, it must be assumed that you are arguing for the counter point unless you make a different point. You never make a point, so the only position that your argument can support is the counter point, which in this case is that we should not work to remove lies from politics.
The truth is lies in speech are normal and functional human behavior. There are politicians who are honest yet still lie. Truth telling is more about overall cooperative intent and openness to self-reflection than it is about the veracity of any specific statement. Through that lens, there are clear aberrations which are not at all equivalent even though both fall under the category of lies.
We are presently at a time where we keep saying no and expecting that to be respected when we need to realize we have to physically set the boundary. We don't really know if that will be respected either, but it's the next step unless we want to be victims.
Hehe, I love this. It reminds me of a film called Red Beard in which a mentally ill girl brought into his care from a house of prostitution had to have some boundaries set for her when the house madam sent men to collect her. I think the whole issue is just so simple if you are real. Ah, but who knows what that means. I guess many find out when somebody real taps one on the shoulder and says no, you are not doing this. If humans had no inner instinct for justice there would be no law, which is just a best guess approximation.The truth is lies in speech are normal and functional human behavior. There are politicians who are honest yet still lie. Truth telling is more about overall cooperative intent and openness to self-reflection than it is about the veracity of any specific statement. Through that lens, there are clear aberrations which are not at all equivalent even though both fall under the category of lies.
Similar to the idea that sexually seeking behavior is normal and healthy for society. Yet there is a difference between someone flirting with a person at a bar and being attentive to cues about whether those flirtations are acceptable and a person who intentionally makes someone uncomfortable with explicit sexual statements in order to intimidate them into compliance rationalizing their behavior as non-predatory because no one explicitly said no. And even still ignoring the no completely and expecting to be physically halted to respond to any attempt to establish a boundary.
These differences are clear and apparent to anyone who witnesses a flirt and a predator despite no one precisely being able to say why one specific behavior is normal and another predatory.
We are presently at a time where we keep saying no and expecting that to be respected when we need to realize we have to physically set the boundary. We don't really know if that will be respected either, but it's the next step unless we want to be victims.
Hehe, I love this. It reminds me of a film called Red Beard in which a mentally ill girl brought into his care from a house of prostitution had to have some boundaries set for her when the house madam sent men to collect her. I think the whole issue is just so simple if you are real. Ah, but who knows what that means. I guess many find out when somebody real taps one on the shoulder and says no, you are not doing this. If humans had no inner instinct for justice there would be no law, which is just a best guess approximation.
My guess is that the most satisfying thing in life there is is to love selflessly and there is a pleasure center inside that can't be topped when one is feeling it. There is knowing and doubt and this other thing I have no name for but might call the truth of being.
Ideally yes but the person I see in the film I project to be is far in advance of me both in physical ability and fearlessness. Not to act would cause the loss of self respect in my opinion. I think we have with being also a sense of duty. An ego can never act selflessly but someone within us does from time to time.If I look at myself, I would say that I still often choose to be the victim despite increasing awareness of that choice. I hope my desire to be more in charge of electing to change that drives my exploration and external appreciation thereof but fear the contending motivation to understand others as a means to deflect application of that appreciation to myself. At least your affinity for Red Beard makes more sense to me now. And, no, I haven't seen it yet. Right now I'm wondering if your hopes for me in doing so are far more profound than enjoying a movie which may resonate with me and teach me something.
Tell me, do you feel you would take action against the men who threatened the girl were you in Red Beard's shoes?
Evereytime Trump lies the media should cut away and explain what the lie was and then continue on this whatever they were doing!
The problem is that some in the media actually believe that Trumps lies are the truth!
Agreed. But it’s far easier (and more importantly profitable) to just go into hysterics and over anything and everything he says and does than to do actually journalism and explain the situation and how he’s wrong.
Agreed. But it’s far easier (and more importantly profitable) to just go into hysterics and over anything and everything he says and does than to do actually journalism and explain the situation and how he’s wrong.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again; trump should be completely ignored as should most of the people in his administration, instead what the media should report on and cover is what this admin is actually doing.
What any admin is actually doing should be the focus of journalist, whether it be Trump's admin, Obama's, or the upcoming one of Buttigieg's. And many journalist do, just not the ones on television (except for the rare exception like Frontline).
Cable news unfortunately is what many look to for their news but it’s the farthest thing from journalism without exception. And long form in depth reporting on actual issues isn’t something that cable news does at all.They gravitate towards personalities, dumbing things down to headlines, talking heads yelling over each other, purposefully antagonistic language, etc. That’s not journalism, that’s info-tainment and they struck gold with Trump's election.
I doubt the american public cares much about what the administration is actually doing tbh. They simply want somebody to make them feel angry about something.