Is the truth a defense on boards.ie?

easychair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, what if there is a discussion on Hezbollah in the politics forum and someone describes them as a terrorist group?

They are designated as terrorists generally by the West but as resistance fighters generally by the Islamic world and Hezbollah themselves.

What if someone states the fact that Hezbollah are terrorists and it upsets users who are Hezbollah members or those who view them as legitimate resistance fighters?

Orion wrote: »

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" -- Gerald Seymour

Truth is subjective. Facts are not. But they are often confused.

So what if it upsets some members? The fact is that some see Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, the fact is that Hezbollah have carried out terrorist attacks, and if someone gets upset but someone else considers hezbollah a terrorist organisation, I’d say too bad.

One can’t spend ones life tip toeing around trying to ensure that nothing one does or says might not upset someone else. If you are the sort of person who might get upset if someone says, for example, that Hezbollah are terrorists, then perhaps you should reconsider if a discussion group is the right place for you.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Similarly you can't be simultaneously be a mason and a Catholic without violating the Catholic Church's rulings. If you intentionally disregard the rulings whilst claiming to follow the rulings you are an obvious hypocrite.

By that definition pretty much every "catholic" in Ireland is a hypocrite.

Although I don't see your example as hypocrisy, tbh. If the catholics in question criticized Freemasonry whilst being members - that would make them hypocrites. That fact that a second organisation that they are a member of criticized that organisation doesn't have any bearing on the matter.

---

In relation to your point in general, I think whether you should be allowed post a "fact" depends on the context.

Example fact: Most people in US prisons are black or Hispanic.

What purpose does it serve? Does it imply a dubious generalisation? Is it relevant? Depending on what the context is such a "fact" above could be used in to push some race agenda.

Every case should be taken on it's own merit really.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Of course it matters what the individual thinks. If they don't think that what they are doing is wrong, they cannot, by definition, be a hypocrite

The term hypocrite is not subjective. Either you practice what you preach or you don't.

I don't think you are fully understanding me. To be a Catholic, for example, you agree to at least give a best-effort to adhere to it's doctrines.

Membership of a masonic lodge is a clear indicator that you have no interest in adhering to the Catholic doctrine.

twinQuins

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those Feedback threads where the OP basically tries to continue a discussion from a locked thread...

P. Breathnach

Dades wrote: »

...
In relation to your point in general, I think whether you should be allowed post a "fact" depends on the context.

Example fact: Most people in US prisons are black or Hispanic.

I can't see anything wrong with posting something that is a verifiable statement of fact of that type (public knowledge). Facts are neutral.

[I would object to private information being posted, even if it were factually true.]

What purpose does it serve? Does it imply a dubious generalisation? Is it relevant? Depending on what the context is such a "fact" above could be used in to push some race agenda.

That's a matter of how facts are treated.

The over- or under-representation of any demographic group in a prison population is an important question, and merits consideration.

P. Breathnach

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The term hypocrite is not subjective....

I disagree very strongly with that bold assertion.

Tom Dunne

I can't help but find it a little ironic that a person, the majority of whose posts are in the Conspiracy Theories forum, is questioning whether you can be punished for making a true statement.

Dades

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The over- or under-representation of any demographic group in a prison population is an important question, and merits consideration.

Of course it merits consideration - in a thread about that. But what if the thread in question has nothing to do with the demographics of prison populations? What if the thread is about, say, immigration policy?

Surely you can an envisage a scenario where a fact is posted in such an out of context fashion as to amount to trolling/flaming or just being a dick?

P. Breathnach

Dades wrote: »

Of course it merits consideration - in a thread about that. But what if the thread in question has nothing to do with the demographics of prison populations? What if the thread is about, say, immigration policy?

Surely you can an envisage a scenario where a fact is posted in such an out of context fashion as to amount to trolling/flaming or just being a dick?

By inserting a fact into a context you can be making an implication of some sort. So yes, I understand what you mean.

But it's not the fact that is the problem: it is the creation of an implication that the fact is linked to the point under discussion.

Dades

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it's not the fact that is the problem: it is the creation of an implication that the fact is linked to the point under discussion.

Indeed - at which point the truth of the fact isn't a defence for posting it, as per the question in the OP.

Dudess

The truth is an unalterable fact that cannot be refuted. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion, it is not something one feels in one's waters, it is not something one "believes" to be true.

Can't understand why this eludes so many...

Absolam

Truth to one is heresy to another. Facts are unalterable, but an opinion of a fact is entirely subjective. BB offered an opinion on facts and he believed his opinion to be true, but his opinion that Catholics who didn't conform to his opinion of Catholicism weren't Catholics, posted on a Christianity forum, wasn't likely to win a lot of positive feedback. He certainly appears to believe what he is saying is true, but it doesn't make the argument factual. Or true. Nonetheless, surely the point of a discussion forum is to discuss, regardless of the merits of the argument?

Sacksian

Dudess wrote: »

The truth is an unalterable fact that cannot be refuted. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion, it is not something one feels in one's waters, it is not something one "believes" to be true.

Can't understand why this eludes so many...

Interestingly (to me), lots of people with very different ideas of what the truth of a given situation is often agree that there is an objective, knowable truth. They just can't agree as to who is right and who is wrong but they have fairly much the same idea of truth.

However, there are obviously quite a few different theories of truth in philosophical literature and, if it hasn't been settled over a couple of thousand years of study, chances are this thread is not going to reach a satisfactory conclusion for the OP.

Absolam

Truth is beauty?

randylonghorn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll pose a hypothetical example. The government publishes figures for 2010 that the demographic most likely to cause death through dangerous driving is 18-25 year old males. I state this fact and it upsets 18-25 year old males.

Actually, that's not a fact.

Well, I suppose saying that the figures were published by the government (or more likely the RSA) would be a fact, but the results published are the subjective interpretation of the statistics, which in turn are contested on the basis of sloppy methodology and loaded questions ... and contested not just by 18-25 year olds.

In general, as an academic, I would always be wary of quoting survey results / stats as "facts" unless I have satisfied myself that the underlying methodology is above reproach.

As Mark Twain might mutter: "lies, damned lies and statistics"!

That's not to say the stats can't be reported, but let them sit for what they are: the results of one (possibly not perfect) study; don't insist on pushing them down someone's throat as the ultimate truth!

I would have thought someone who regularly posts on CT would be very skeptical of government stats, in fact ...

Dudess wrote: »

The truth is an unalterable fact that cannot be refuted. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion, it is not something one feels in one's waters, it is not something one "believes" to be true.

Can't understand why this eludes so many...

Because given that definition (and I agree with it) there is so little in life that is actually objectively "true" that people flounder around confused and desperately trying to find more "truth" than actually exists!



And BB, rather than getting into semantics about the definition of hypocrite, maybe consider whether there is an actual need to use a term which is loaded and which will almost always get peoples' backs up?

The primary rule of this site is "be civil". It's perfectly possible to make one's point without resorting to loaded terminology, the use of which many will see as flamebaiting.

TheZohanS

Absolam wrote: »

Truth is beauty?

Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty, ergo truth is moisture?

ShooterSF

Some (well most Irish) Catholics think they can pick and choose what parts of Christianity they believe in. Some choose to not pick the freemasonary bit.

While you and I might not agree with them their thinking is consistent and not one of a hypocrite. The minute they lecture someone else on not believing part of christianity's teaching as you can't pick and choose, then they become a hypocrite. IMO.

You and I both feel Religions are not a pick and mix, that does not make does that do a hypocrite. If you are going to accuse them on anything it's being wrong and then we get down to opinion.

OldGoat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've recently had an incident that has raised a broader question for me?

Can you be punished for making a true statement if it upsets someone else?

Yes.
In the Smoking forum posting of figures, statistics and known facts about the ills of smoking is a bannable offence as laid out in the charter.

/Thread

castie

Hyprocrite is certainly subjective.

A Soldier may say killing is wrong.
Yet he is not deemed a hyprocite while fighting in a war.


A second example.

I hold a belief that I am a great Rugby player.
If I have some bad games am I a hyprocite as I havent adhered to my belief?

According to the below definition I would be....

"a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

Yahew

I read the title and thought, no. The Truth is Paramount!

Then I thought about the Don't Be A Dick! super-rule, and I scenario I remember in the health forum came to mind ( Some details changed to protect the parties, and neither party was me).

Poster asks for specific advice for loosing fat of his/her posterior and thighs.
Poster 2 replies that that targeting diets are fads, and the best way to lose weight is to get off her fat ass, eat less, and exercise more.

None of which is untrue. The ass was clearly big enough ( or the poster would not be concerned by it), and this mechanism for losing weight would clearly work.

Nevertheless it is clear the way the post was put was a put-down, and thus invalidated the major rule. So the truth is not necessarily a defence.

easychair

OldGoat wrote: »

Yes.
In the Smoking forum posting of figures, statistics and known facts about the ills of smoking is a bannable offence as laid out in the charter.

/Thread

I the LGBT forum article 14 of the Charter states that no advertising is allowed, but in the forums the moderators do allow advertising.

Dades

^^ I'm confused - what's that got to do with anything?