There's another aspect to consider here...

It has not always been the case that publicly elected officials say things that are known to be false, despite that being pointed out. Continue the narrative...

If enough people say "X", and they say "X" enough, then some people will start believing "X"...

You're giving politicians too much credit. They purposefully and knowingly lie all the time. They lie about:

1. What favors they owe their major donors
2. Why they voted for bills, particularly when they vote to help their donors.
3. They lie about why they're worth tens of millions on a 6 figure salary.
4. They lie in their campaign promises.
5. They lie about why we're going to war
6. They lie about why they voted for war
7. They lie when they say "things need to take time."
8. They lie about their foundations and their donations from horrid countries like Saudi Arabia
9. They lie about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones.
10. They lie when they say why they didn't prosecute the Banks for the 08 crash.
11. The list goes on and on.

You wrote:

I would say there is the ethical level, which is telling the truth is when one tells what one believes to be true. So, even if Dave stole the cookie, but Mark thinks Jack did, Mark saying Jack stole it is "telling the truth" on an ethical level.

In the strict real/metaphysical level. Telling the truth would have to be actually telling the truth, saying Dave stole the cookie. I think while we would like everyone to be able to do the latter, I think a functional definition of "telling the truth" would be the former. In other words, I wouldn't call Mark in that situation a "liar."

No argument in general here, but...

I find no value in naming levels although I may...

What does talking about the "ethical" and the "strict real/metaphysical" level add to the understanding of what telling the truth consists of?

Do you realize the burden of proof that accusing another of lying carries?

I'm not going to waste my time guessing what you think. So, go ahead and tell me what you think it is.

What does talking about the "ethical" and the "strict real/metaphysical" level add to the understanding of what telling the truth consists of?

I explained that very clearly in my post #572. Go read it again.

I find no value in naming levels although I may...

That's your personal view. There is definitely value in them and I've shown some in post #572

Ok.

There's another way to get at the point...

Is it reasonable to expect someone to assert only true statements, given that it is unreasonable to require that one hold only true belief?

Look, if you want to have a conversation, then converse and make a point, and I will respond to that point. I'm not here to answer your list of questions. I assume you wouldn't want to be so either.

Fearful to commit? It's a simple yes or no question. I'm asking you what you think/believe. That's part of having a conversation... and an integral one, at that.

The burden of proof for accusing another of lying isn't determined by me. I'm just wondering if you know what it is?

Again, a simple yes or no question...

Thought better of it...

Here's something interesting...

The truth conditions of a statement of thought/belief do not include the speaker's belief, but the existential conditions do.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

What does the term "truth" refer to here?

If enough people say "X" enough, some people will start believing "X". Now, if "X" is false, and can be shown as such, what kind of mindset would it take for a listener to continue believing "X" despite their being shown that it's false? If "X" is false, and can be shown as such, but isn't by those peddling "X", then either the salesperson does not know that, or does not want others to know that. A politician peddling false thought/belief as a means to enact legislation is unacceptable. One who does so knowingly does so for a reason.

What if circumstances change and "X" becomes true as a result of the changes? "X" was once false, but is now true. So, it can no longer be shown to be false.

What if "X" is held to be the case by a large group of people who have no knowledge regarding how "X" has become the case?

Now, we could peruse history looking for situations when those in power were knowingly and deliberately claiming that "X" was true, while knowing it was not, but doing everything in their power to make it so. We needn't look far...

Let "X" be "Obamacare is in a death spiral", or... "Obamacare is a disaster", or "Obamacare will implode"...

e.g. "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!"

It hardly counts as letting it fail if you make it happen. It's like claiming that the car will crash and then cutting the brakes to prove yourself right. And I bet many would eat it up. Trump forces the insurance companies to raise their prices or drop out all together by stopping the CSRs but blames it on Obamacare, and his supporters will believe him, despite the fact that it being Trump's fault is right there in the open. That's "post-truth". With an ordinary lie you'd hide the fact that you played a decisive role.

(Y)

"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome."

Stumbled across this IMO relevant quote from Orwell, obviously predating the arrival of Trump and therefore spoken within what's supposed to have been the golden age of Truth.

This basic fact concerning human psychology has been exploited by politicians for a very long time, so again there doesn't seem anything radically new going on. It's a symbiotic relationship between a politician's proclivity to lie and the general population's tendency to believe those lies as long as their worldview is bolstered.

Maybe the profusion of media sources these days allow one to seek out any perspective they desire, specifically those which will validate rather than challenge their opinions. Those opinions in turn seem typically grounded in emotions rather than facts. Seems natural to seek out facts which reinforce our emotional biases and ignore, or diminish the significance of, those that don't. Is this new?

I also think many of us are more susceptible to this phenomena than we'd like to believe. Sure, it makes us feel good to fancy ourselves defenders of honesty and objectivity who have no strong political biases or assumptions, and who will follow the truth wherever it leads, regardless of whether or not it challenges our worldview. How many of us can honestly say that? I certainly can't say it.

I think Nietzsche made a good point (I forgot where) that honesty is rare even amongst the strongest, the bravest, the most genuine human beings. We must conceal many unflattering 'truths' about ourselves simply in order to cope effectively in this world. Why truth? Maybe illusions are more satisfying and life affirming.

Whatever the case, I still don't see this as a 'post-truth' world by way of contrast with a different, and more honest, one. As Banno mentioned, we're not just talking about Trump here (so pointing out his copious and ridiculous use of lies is not enough), but a more general trend in the direction of eschewing objective truth in favor of emotionally satisfying illusions which have little contact with, or regard for, a common 'reality.'

This process is apparently taking place in an intentional way, as something that both the manufacturers of bullshit and their consumers realize is not indicative of the truth of things. In other words, truth has become irrelevant and we can concoct any narrative we like as long as it validates our opinions and makes us feel good. That would be 'post-truth' IMO. Truth is no longer even valued or desired. That would separate this age from previous ones which valued truth even when deceiving, as paradoxical as that sounds.

I think I'm starting to get the gist of the issue, but I still think the term post-truth is extremely misleading and should therefore be replaced by something else, preferably something less likely to lead to the sort of confusions we're seeing here.

I continue to think that the average political partisan genuinely believes in the truth of their position(s); this goes for Trump voters who sincerely believe in things like the Deep State, and its ostensible desire to sabotage the Trump presidency by any means necessary. Playing devil's advocate: Is that idea totally ridiculous? Is the notion of an entrenched and corrupt 'establishment' designed to protect corporate global interests against any threats really so absurd?

Done rambling.

The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O I don't know what planet you're living on man, but if I was Trump, and ANYONE - even Kim Jong Un - called me saying they have compromising information on my adversary, I would meet with them to get that information. What's so bad about that? Of course I would!

You don't even know what collusion means - it's hidden collaboration for an ILLEGAL purpose. There's nothing illegal in receiving compromising information about the other candidate while I'm running for office. I suggest you drop hugging that pony so tightly, you might see the world aright.

Also, receiving information, or meeting with someone isn't the same as a collaboration. A collaboration entails that I also give them something.

That's true, but self-awareness is also presupposed in doing evil. So, once one crosses the threshold to self-awareness; if one uses that self-awareness for evil purposes, the path to good is all the harder; which means that one would have been better not to cross that threshold. — John

You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s

I think we can do things innocently which if done with some kind of knowledge, even if not done intentionally or consciously, and hence done in that sense ignorantly, would be called somewhat "evil". — John

Right. Well to me innocence represents that state in which one is not capable to do evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the Fall, they were not capable of evil before eating of the Tree. That's why the Serpent had to deceive them, and pressure them to eat of the Tree, they wouldn't think of doing that themselves.

If the act is done with full self-consciousness and awareness of the harm to the other, though, then it becomes, not merely somewhat, but more fully, evil. So, I think there is a spectrum, a range, from good to evil; with no human act being absolutely good or absolutely evil. A similar spectrum operates from innocence, through ignorance, to awareness and knowledge. the more we are aware, the more we know, the more accountable we become. — John

I would agree with this, except that I don't think we, as sinful human beings, are fully capable of innocence in this life.

You don't even know what collusion means - it's hidden collaboration for an ILLEGAL purpose. — Agustino

Doesn't have to be illegal.

I don't know what planet you're living on man, but if I was Trump, and ANYONE - even Kim Jong Un - called me saying they have compromising information on my adversary, I would meet with them to get that information. What's so bad about that? Of course I would! — Agustino

According to this, that would be illegal.

I believe the actual law (or one of them, at least) in question is § 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510) which states that:

No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

...

(b) A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The key part is "other thing of value", which may include compromising material on an opponent.

There's an interview with law experts here about that law and Trump Jr.'s meeting:

“The emails are simply put damning as a legal matter,” explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. “The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law.”

Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, is even blunter: “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.”

Trump Jr.‘s decision to take the meeting in and of itself likely violated campaign finance law, which does not require you to actually get anything useful from foreigners. In other words, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton might have constituted a federal crime.

“The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value,” Goodman tells me. “There is now a clear case that Donald Trump Jr. has met all the elements of the law, which is a criminally enforced federal statute.”

Fearful to commit? It's a simple yes or no question. I'm asking you what you think/believe. That's part of having a conversation... and an integral one, at that.

Since you're the one who refuses to make an argument in this discussion, the one fearful to commit here is you..

And no, demanding someone answer a specific yes or no question, particularly one they refuse to answer themselves, is not an integral part of having a conversation. It's a way to try to control the discourse, not continue it.

Doesn't have to be illegal. — Michael

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

The key part I believe is "other thing of value", which may include compromising material on an opponent. — Michael

I doubt it. The law seems to be focused on financial contributions which could make the candidate in question indebted to the foreign national, hence compromising national interests. But this isn't the case with the said information. For all you know, the foreign national in this case could simply hate the other candidate, so he passes on the information. It doesn't suggest that the candidate that receives the information is in any way indebted to them.

The burden of proof for accusing another of lying isn't determined by me. I'm just wondering if you know what it is?

Again, a simple yes or no question...

And it certainly isn't determined by me. So, I'm wondering if you know what it is? A simple yes or no question.

And feel free to make an argument and actually have a conversation. You're clearly scared to do so.

I doubt it. The law seems to be focused on financial contributions which could make the candidate in question indebted to the foreign national, hence compromising national interests. — Agustino

The law says "make a contribution or a donation of money or [my emphasis] other thing of value" which expressly states that this "other thing of value" isn't money.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion — Agustino

It says "secret agreement or cooperation especially [my emphasis] for an illegal or [my emphasis] deceitful purpose".

And if we're just throwing dictionaries around, then https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collusion:

"Secret or [my emphasis] illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others."

But just ordinary language use is sufficient. I can collude with Baden to unfairly moderate your posts. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the term.

There's also information on its etymology in your Merriam Webster link:

Our English "lude" words (allude, collude, delude, elude, and prelude) are based on the Latin verb ludere, meaning "to play." Collude dates back to 1525 and combines ludere and the prefix col-, meaning "with" or "together." The verb is younger than the related noun collusion, which appeared sometime in the 14th century with the specific meaning "secret agreement or cooperation." Despite their playful history, collude and collusion have always suggested deceit or trickery rather than good-natured fun.

The law says "make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" which expressly states that this "other thing of value" isn't money. — Michael

Yes, but the other thing of value is something that can be used to blackmail or request favors from the candidate. Nobody would consider information to be of this nature.

I can collude with the other Baden to unfairly moderate your posts. — Michael

Yes, and that's illegal in-so-far as this forum is concerned, in that it's not a moral & righteous activity. But I do see your point.

Nor by the way is the information used for deception.

Yes, but the other thing of value is something that can be used to blackmail or request favors from the candidate. — Agustino

Doesn't say anything like this in the statute.

Doesn't say anything like this in the statute. — Michael

Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this.

The truth conditions of a statement of thought/belief do not include the speaker's belief, but the existential conditions do.

Who said that and where?

Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this. — Agustino

It doesn't intend to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals. It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. A no strings attached donation is illegal.

It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. — Michael

Why?