When you dig down to the philosophical issues in depth, the distinction between fact and belief can seem to blur. — MetaphysicsNow
However, with the possible exception of Pontius Pilate, I have never known of a single case where a politician or lawyer has seriously questioned the distinction from that kind of philosophical perspective. Giuliani, Trump and their like rather help themselves to the fact/belief distinction we're all familiar with from our everyday lives when it serves their purposes, and then simply move those posts together when it looks like they are about to score an own goal - at least, that's how it seems to me. At best it is intellectual inconsistency, at worst intellectual dishonesty - in the former case an appropriate cure might be a course in philosophical logic, in the latter some hard time might allow them to see the error of their ways - imagine what the world would be like if politicians and lawyers faced jail for intellecutal dishonesty, of course you'd have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
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
It is therefore up to voters to decide. It is not a legal matter. Government agencies are not supposed to be partaking in partisan politics. — Dalai Dahmer
If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials. — creativesoul
On a personal level, one could argue that it's none of anyone's business if someone running for office has had multiple extra-marital affairs replete with non-disclosure agreements as a means to keep them secret. On another level, one could argue that it is most certainly the business of the American people to know about the people running for office. How else does the public form their opinion about them? — creativesoul
For example, many folk hold moral values, such as abortion and other civil rights of the utmost importance. If a candidate for office holds contradictory values to a voter, then that voter has every right to know about that, for those are the kinds of things that many people use to decide how to vote. — creativesoul
When placed with my immediately prior response this appears therefore to suggest every candidate and holder of any political office has committed fraud and is committing fraud.Say a candidate says 'X', but does not believe that 'X' is true. Further suppose that 'X' is something that a very large swathe of the population holds as of the utmost importance regarding which candidate will get their vote. The candidate is quite aware of all this, and in fact, s/he has asserted 'X' for no other reason than to acquire the votes of the people in question here(of those particular voters).
I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people — creativesoul
If all you meant was "equal under the law" then we've no disagreement. Keep in mind here that not all law applies to all people. Some laws apply to the financial district. Others apply to business owner responsibility. Others still apply to elected officials.
— creativesoul
Feel free, then, to define which actual law it is under which an agent of the government demands answers for the allegation that we have been discussing. — Dalai Dahmer
This has never stopped any politician from saying one thing and then adopting the opposite position when it comes to agreements with other official players.
There is also no law against this. So, as I have already alluded, leave things to voters and keep politicians and government agents from weaponizing their politics through usurping the laws which are supposed to treat all citizens equal under them. — Dalai Dahmer
This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws. — creativesoul
The thread is not about how laws apply to extra-marital affairs - in general. It is not about a consensual sexual relationship involving Trump. It is about the effects/affects of language use - in general - with particular attention being paid to cases where candidates deliberately and knowingly misrepresent their own thought and belief as a means to lead the public to believe things about them that are not true. That is committing fraud against the American people. The people are buying into false pretense. The extra-marital affair part was invoked by you. While it is covered by what I've been discussing, it's not the only thing that is. — creativesoul
There are no laws that I'm aware of that are enforced when a candidate lies to the American people. There are laws that are enforced when banks lie, when retailers lie, when manufacturer lie, when drug companies lie, when investment firms lie, etc. In short, there are all sorts of laws regarding committing fraud against people. There used to be more. There are no such laws concerning a lying candidate.
There ought be — creativesoul
You're missing something very very important to consider. Voters do not write the laws which govern political behaviour. Voters could change the entire landscape and end up with the same problem if the laws are not changed accordingly. — creativesoul
This will be my only attempt to get this conversation going in the direction it ought be, according to the main thrust of the thread. Laws governing the behaviour of folk running for public office are not applicable to those who are not. "Equal under the law" is irrelevant to the thread. That is about laws that apply to everyone's behaviour. In particular, it is about applying those laws to everyone equally. We are not discussing those laws.
— creativesoul
Well, how convenient. And how inconvenient it was of me to press you on what you yourself introduced regarding the different laws for different circumstances. This is a law argument, after all. Lawyers are involved with this case.
So now, apparently, it is NOT about a different law for a different circumstance but about "laws" plural that apply to "everyone's" behavior.
So what is this "everyone's" laws that are applied to ONE area of behavior? You know? The behavior which is the discussion point of this entire thread?
"We", however, are apparently not discussing law or laws now. Need I inconveniently remind you that even within this thread's title is the name Giuliani. Yes, that is a LAW-yer. — Dalai Dahmer
Are you advocating for law change with regard to this thread topic?
If so, then it is really an admission that a law body should not be involving itself into this circumstance. If law somehow requires change to fit one's argument as it stands now then in as it stands now should not involve the law. — Dalai Dahmer
You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people. — creativesoul
I would argue that there ought be, if there is not already, laws governing a candidates' behaviour; particularly... laws governing their sincerity in speech. There ought be laws against a candidate knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting their own thought and belief. That would be to misrepresent themselves, their motives, and hence their actual intentions. Misrepresenting oneself to the public, when you're a candidate for public office, is a clear case of committing fraud against the American people.
— creativesoul
You do not even know there is such a law and then you argue for a government agency to legally pursue something you acknowledge you do not even know whether it is something they can legally pursue.
That's confusion right there. — Dalai Dahmer
No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud. — creativesoul
I would strongly argue that that candidate has committed fraud against the American people. — creativesoul
To me the quest for knowledge starts with Socrates' "To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.", expanded by Descartes to "I think, therefore I am". That's about where what we can truely know stops and strictly spoken where facts stop. Beond that we need axioms, if the applied axiom gets questioned, what we took as facts based upon that axiom gets reduced to an opinion. As long as the applied axiom doesn't get questioned we can take our opinions based upon that axiom as if they were facts. — Tomseltje
No confusion my friend. I've not argued for anyone in particular to pursue anything in particular. You're either dishonest or wrong. Neither is acceptable. The discussion with you is an exercise in spotting fallacy in the wild... I've been ignoring them out loud.
— creativesoul
So you have not argued for the legal pursuit of the former candidate in question for fraud? — Dalai Dahmer
The facts are tangible but do they are not always reveal the truth. The truth depends on the context of facts and also how one wishes to view that context.
In the case of Trump and Russian collusion, say Trump was innocent and being railroaded by sore losers. The same facts will add differently. Many assume guilty context, so when the innocent gets upset, this means guilt.
Two lawyers presenting the offense and defense of the same case, will each pick the facts, that support a given context. It is easy to prove or disprove facts, but the context can be disguised, especially since lawyers are not required to tell the truth. — wellwisher
That quote is untenable. It makes no sense. It is self-contradictory on it's face. You're conflating conclusions based upon axioms with facts. Facts cannot be false. Conclusions based upon axioms can. — creativesoul
Say we have a set of facts(events that everyone agrees took place). — creativesoul
Sure, you can uphold that strict definition of what a fact is. In wich case there is only one fact that can be supported by the evidence, wich is 'I am'. — Tomseltje
Nope. I'm barely breaching the idea. Is there a problem with your reading comprehension? — creativesoul
Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion... — creativesoul
Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion...
— creativesoul
If you don't accept any axioms, you won't get beond Descartes "I think, therefor I am". So if you dismiss all 'facts' derrived from axioms, that's about the only fact left. — Tomseltje
We've been working from two different conceptions of the term "fact".
Do you understand that and agree? — creativesoul
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.