Americans have always had a tremendous capacity for fantasy. Jay Gatsby is a classic American hero because he constructed a fantasy version of himself and then attempted to live it. John Wayne constructed a fantasy version of the American West, which a lot of people still try to imitate.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well let’s — let’s — the other day you also told BuzzFeed, though, that at some point after the 2016 election, Michael Cohen had complained to some people that he hadn’t been paid by Donald Trump. And then — so then you said Cohen met with Trump and told him and Giuliani said that we’ll cover your expenses, they work out this $35,000 a month retainer after that. So — so the president did know about this after the campaign?
GIULIANI: Can’t say that. I mean, at some point, yes but it could have been recently, it could have been a while back. Those are the facts that we’re still working on. And that — you know, may be in a little bit of dispute. This is more rumor than it is anything else. But…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what you said. You said that to BuzzFeed.
GIULIANI: But here’s the — but here’s the — well, yes, I mean that — that’s one of the possibilities and one of the rumors. The reality is …
STEPHANOPOULOS: You stated it as fact.
GIULIANI: Well, maybe I did. But I — right now, I’m at the point where I’m learning, and I can only — I can’t prove that. I can just say it’s rumor. I can prove it’s rumor, but I can’t prove it’s fact. Yet. Maybe we will.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But — but you’ve said as — it — you’ve said as a matter of fact on Hannity and BuzzFeed, you talked to the Washington Post about it.
GIULIANI: I don’t know — I don’t know how you separate fact and opinion.
So, Rudy Guiliani was being interviewed when asked why he once presented something as fact that he now(at that time) was presenting as mere opinion.
Giuliani also said that he is concerned that a Trump interview with Mueller could be set up to catch the president on a possible perjury charge because “truth is relative.”
“They may have a different version of the truth than we do,” Giuliani said.
People have conflicting opinions about what happened or is happening(the facts). It does not follow from that that truth is relative. That is to conflate truth and opinion. Rudy did just that. Unfortunately, there may be enough other people who use those terms in a similar enough manner to also think that "there is some 'truth'" to Giuliani's claims. — creativesoul
The difference between opinion and fact is simple. All opinion is based in belief about events that have happened, are happening, or will happen with the last of these being predictive/expectation. Those events that have happened or are happening are facts. One's opinion about the facts can be true or false. The facts are precisely what makes them so. Facts cannot be either, true or false. They are what makes opinions truth apt. When an opinion is true, it corresponds to the relevant facts. When it is false, it does not. — creativesoul
People have conflicting opinions about what happened or is happening(the facts). It does not follow from that that truth is relative. That is to conflate truth and opinion. Rudy did just that. Unfortunately, there may be enough other people who use those terms in a similar enough manner to also think that "there is some 'truth'" to Giuliani's claims.
Rudy also conflated truth with fact, when he said that people have their own version of 'truth'... — creativesoul
I made that point earlier so I'm not sure why you seem to be ascribing a position to me that I don't hold. Maybe it's just a benign oversight but it doesn't seem truthful at all, which is interesting since you're here defending the sanctity of truth against sophistry — Erik
I read an article a while ago concerning how the interpretation of carpetbaggers - northerners who went down south to help with Reconstruction after the Civil War - had significantly shifted historically. At first they were almost unanimously perceived as shameless, self-serving opportunists who sought to take advantage of the chaos in the postwar South to enrich themselves. That lasted for 30-40 years and then it underwent a change to the notion that, while they may have been deeply flawed human beings who made many mistakes, they nevertheless sought to do good by helping emancipated slaves in a bad situation. And much later, during the 1960's civil rights era, the interpretation altered to the point where they were seen as essentially flawless figures heroically willing to risk their lives to battle forces of racism and corruption on behalf of the oppressed.
Which interpretation is true? What are the facts? How do we separate fact from belief or opinion, fact from value, objective from subjective?... — Erik
I watched my son's baseball game last week and there was a disputed play at 2nd base, a throw down form the catcher to get the runner stealing. The runner was called out and the fans on one side were enraged by the ruling. The other side's fans agreed with the call and couldn't believe there would even be any argument. My point is that even factual matters - and in this case replay would have shown which side was right - seem subject to dispute based on personal interest, perspective, and a number of additional things which make the ostensibly simple distinction between fact and opinion a bit more complex in all but the most mundane matters (e.g., is there a cat on the mat?), or in scientific matters which disclose beings in a particular way... — Erik
...In other words, in many cases truth appears to be more a more complex matter than simple correspondence, especially when involving past events, guiding assumptions, personal interests, and the like which influence the way things show up for us. Imo of course...
...I think this wider topic of truth/belief/opinion may not be as simple as it appears on the surface. And while I'd concede that they shouldn't be purposely conflated, it is often hard to completely disentangle them...
Why assume facts are of any relevance to a politicians? — Tomseltje
I've always considered Guiliani to be a typical Republican bullshitter. I used to think the Left was different - at least slightly more truthful and compassionate, etc. - but not so much anymore. Trump has turned us into a bunch of freaking loons. We now (e.g.) enthusiastically support global free trade after his proposed tariffs, we take a bellicose nationalistic stance towards Russia, we ridicule the lower and middle classes, we place our trust in the FBI without any reservations, etc. — Erik
Why assume that they aren't?
They clearly are, otherwise they wouldn't neglect to speak about the ones they find damaging, and openly espouse the one's they find helpful... — creativesoul
Is this all about an alleged consensual sexual act between two adult people? — Dalai Dahmer
What was that Stalinistic statement? Something like "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear"?
Well we do, and should, have things we should hide. It comes under the heading of 'Privacy'.
Everyone is, or should be, entitled to privacy where there is no harm to others. Was someone harmed by an alleged orgasm?
If a president must be seen as different than any other citizen, with regard to privacy and personal family matters, then the flip side is that he can also be different enough to be above the same laws as all those other citizens - and we shouldn't want that.
No. — creativesoul
.
This makes no sense whatsoever. — creativesoul
The thread is about how the public narrative affects/effects the public thought, belief, and subsequent action(s).
There's much to be said about government officials lying to the American people, including but most certainly not limited to cases of lying during a campaign in order to get elected. — creativesoul
What constitutes committing fraud against the American people? — creativesoul
We are supposedly all "equal under the law". What is there not to understand about that? An agent of the government has no right to ask you anything about your personal and consensual arrangements and certainly not expect answers to such inappropriate questions.
Would you like an agent of the government to demand such answers from you? — Dalai Dahmer
I'm reminded of something I read towards the beginning of Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations (which in general is a double misnomer for that work, but that's another topic) in which he says that there really is nothing one can do just with words to persuade someone who, when faced with a choice between abandoning consistency or giving up their position, will prefer to abandon consistency. — MetaphysicsNow
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.