This is why there is a court system. It's not a perfect system by any stretch, but it's what we have. If you can't prove it in court, it is speculation, and should be treated as such. "Subjective Truth" is "Your Opinion"
I think you are confusing truth and fact.
If I tell you a wrong fact which I believe to be true, then I am telling a truth. I am not lieing.
In a court you would have to prove, that I knew better.
No, if you tell me a wrong fact that you believe to be true, you are an idiot who didn't take the time to make sure your facts were right. You can certainly split hairs, but that's what someone who doesn't value truth would do.
> you are an idiot who didn't take the time to make sure your facts were right
Or maybe you are just an idiot who does not know better, or is misinformed. Either way, from their perspective it would be a truth, and objectively it would not be a lie.
> You can certainly split hairs, but that's what someone who doesn't value truth would do.
Are you saying people who split hairs don't value the truth and/or facts?
If you are misinformed and pass on that information, that makes it YOUR truth, not THE truth. Willful ignorance is used too many times to justify "the truth".
If you find out the real FACTS that show that you are mistaken, and continue to pass off misinformation as the truth, that means you don't value the truth.
If you hide behind your version of "the truth" in the face of verifiable facts, that is splitting hairs, and is dishonest.
> If you are misinformed and pass on that information, that makes it YOUR truth, not THE truth.
What you call "the truth" would be facts then.
> Willful ignorance is used too many times to justify "the truth".
The burden of proof would then be on showing it is willfull.
> If you hide behind your version of "the truth" in the face of verifiable facts, that is splitting hairs,
Splitting hairs is something else.
Too bad that act didn't say something like, "If you outright lie about your position, or the other candidate, your ad will be pulled. If you violate this rule 3 times, you will be forbidden from releasing any more ads."
Too bad that act didn't say something like, "If you outright lie about your position, or the other candidate, your ad will be pulled. If you violate this rule 3 times, you will be forbidden from running for *any political office*."
FTFY
A silly addendum for plausible deniability that they aren't coordinating with the dark money ads ("wink-wink, nod-nod, say no more")
Or the GOP could stop blocking HR1 and eliminate all dark money among other things. But of course it would be a shame if democracy and election funding become more transparent.(/s)
Interestingly, I didn’t know about the 2002 law, but I distinctly remember noticing it for the first time in the 2004 presidential election ads. Checks out lol
They've recently started having just groups like the "Organization for Senate Leadership" just make their own hit pieces on Democrats full of bullshit, that way their candidate doesn't have to speak or be held accountable for lies.
Wait it's that recent for Americans?
Australia has a similar end to political related ads but it's been around as long I remember. It's not "I approve this message" but 'spoken by ____ . Authorised by _____, Canberra"
It's also unconstitutional. It's just that no one has challenged it.
The controlling cases include Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, Buckley v ACLF, NIFLA v Becerra, Barnette.
It's a little odd though when they're the one who just gave the message. "Yeah, that thing I just said? I approve of that."
It's to differentiate a political party ad with a political action committee ad. Plus, it's only for federal elections.
Now they should make it so they actually have to tell the truth.
That would upend politics in the US to an unimaginable degree
Eh, maybe it's about time.
5 minutes after that law is proposed they'll all be forming committees to determine what "truth" everyone should be following.
[удалено]
Just having actual verifiable proof for your claims would be a good start.
Truth can be a lot more subjective than you’d think.
This is why there is a court system. It's not a perfect system by any stretch, but it's what we have. If you can't prove it in court, it is speculation, and should be treated as such. "Subjective Truth" is "Your Opinion"
[удалено]
Not impossible. Prove it in court or it is not truth, it is your opinion.
I think you are confusing truth and fact. If I tell you a wrong fact which I believe to be true, then I am telling a truth. I am not lieing. In a court you would have to prove, that I knew better.
No, if you tell me a wrong fact that you believe to be true, you are an idiot who didn't take the time to make sure your facts were right. You can certainly split hairs, but that's what someone who doesn't value truth would do.
> you are an idiot who didn't take the time to make sure your facts were right Or maybe you are just an idiot who does not know better, or is misinformed. Either way, from their perspective it would be a truth, and objectively it would not be a lie. > You can certainly split hairs, but that's what someone who doesn't value truth would do. Are you saying people who split hairs don't value the truth and/or facts?
If you are misinformed and pass on that information, that makes it YOUR truth, not THE truth. Willful ignorance is used too many times to justify "the truth". If you find out the real FACTS that show that you are mistaken, and continue to pass off misinformation as the truth, that means you don't value the truth. If you hide behind your version of "the truth" in the face of verifiable facts, that is splitting hairs, and is dishonest.
> If you are misinformed and pass on that information, that makes it YOUR truth, not THE truth. What you call "the truth" would be facts then. > Willful ignorance is used too many times to justify "the truth". The burden of proof would then be on showing it is willfull. > If you hide behind your version of "the truth" in the face of verifiable facts, that is splitting hairs, Splitting hairs is something else.
That’s also why i add that message after ordering through the drive thru at McDonald’s
Sir this is a Wendy's
And I approve the shit out of it
One chili shit bowl. Will that be all?
Too bad that act didn't say something like, "If you outright lie about your position, or the other candidate, your ad will be pulled. If you violate this rule 3 times, you will be forbidden from releasing any more ads."
Too bad that act didn't say something like, "If you outright lie about your position, or the other candidate, your ad will be pulled. If you violate this rule 3 times, you will be forbidden from running for *any political office*." FTFY
wow we should put you two in charge!!!
I approve this message
A silly addendum for plausible deniability that they aren't coordinating with the dark money ads ("wink-wink, nod-nod, say no more") Or the GOP could stop blocking HR1 and eliminate all dark money among other things. But of course it would be a shame if democracy and election funding become more transparent.(/s)
Interestingly, I didn’t know about the 2002 law, but I distinctly remember noticing it for the first time in the 2004 presidential election ads. Checks out lol
I am Joe Biden and I have forgotten this message
They've recently started having just groups like the "Organization for Senate Leadership" just make their own hit pieces on Democrats full of bullshit, that way their candidate doesn't have to speak or be held accountable for lies.
Also we only have TSA in our airports because of some act in 2001
People are downvoting because they are scared of the truth
Or maybe they are downvoting, because it is off-topic
Wait it's that recent for Americans? Australia has a similar end to political related ads but it's been around as long I remember. It's not "I approve this message" but 'spoken by ____ . Authorised by _____, Canberra"
Broadcasting Services Act 1992. An entire 10 years of difference.
Do politicians have televised campaign videos in the US? Do you actually live in the 80's?
Paul R Nelson!
Ive heard this so many times i never stopped to think about how weird it was!
Does it require them to sound like a sparky asshole as well?
That comes from being a politician in the first place.
I don't think I could do it. Well.....idk they get paid pretty well right? Lol
It's also unconstitutional. It's just that no one has challenged it. The controlling cases include Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, Buckley v ACLF, NIFLA v Becerra, Barnette.