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 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."
What does talking about the "ethical" and the "strict real/metaphysical" level add to the understanding of what telling the truth consists of?
I find no value in naming levels although I may...
>: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!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
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? :sThat'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
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.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
I would agree with this, except that I don't think we, as sinful human beings, are fully capable of innocence in this life.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
You don't even know what collusion means - it's hidden collaboration for an ILLEGAL purpose. — Agustino
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
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 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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusionDoesn't have to be illegal. — 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 key part I believe is "other thing of value", which may include compromising material on an opponent. — Michael
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...
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
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.
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.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, 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.I can collude with the other Baden to unfairly moderate your posts. — 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.Doesn't say anything like this in the statute. — Michael
The truth conditions of a statement of thought/belief do not include the speaker's belief, but the existential conditions do.
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
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.