Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | | 2126 | 2127 | 2128 | 2129 | 2130 | 2131 | 2132 | 2133 | 2134 | 2135 | 2136 | 2137 | 2138 | 2139 | 2140 | 2141 | 2142 | 2143 | 2144 | 2145 | 2146
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #29721537 -

shivas.wisdom said:
I dunno... seems like a slippery slope fallacy -- how is prohibiting knowingly false or misleading statements of fact intended to affect an election, materially different from empowering courts to punish individuals for making false or misleading statements of fact under oath?


It's hard to imagine anything more different, IMO.

A: Prohibition on knowingly making a false or misleading statement of fact intended to affect an election.

B: Prohibition for making false or misleading statement of fact under oath.

I'm going with your two hypothetical scenarios even though I don't think "misleading" belongs in B since that's not really perjury.

So...here we go.

Applicability:

A applies to every statement by every human being from birth until death if it is intended to alter a single vote, whether or not it actually has the potential to alter a vote.  It applies to a teacher making an off hand remark to a first grader that "democrats want to end freedom" if that teacher intends that the kid will one day vote against a democrat based on that.

B, on the other hand applies to specifically designated speech during a specific limited time period in a specific venue.  The speaker is made aware of the duty to be truthful at that time and understands the consequences of not being truthful.  In reality, it also only applies to "material" statements of facts, and misleading doesn't matter, but we can ignore these important distinctions for purposes of going with your hypothetical.

Consent:

A applies at all times with or without the consent of the speaker and even if the speaker is unaware of the prohibition.

B applies AFTER the party has knowingly taken an oath with the understanding of the consequences. 

Punishment:

For A, we don't have actual data, but it's pretty safe to assume that it's only going to be used against political rivals of tptb in whatever venue it's looked at.

For B, we know that perjury charges are absurdly rare and convictions even moreso.  This is, of course, partially because perjury, as noted above, is far more narrow than your B hypothetical.  I assume that there would be more if B applied.  If A applied, far more, given the breadth of the prohibition anticipated in that hypothetical.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #29721572 -

So the problem you have, seemingly, isn't with empowering the state with the authority to punish lies (and therefore dictate truth), but rather that this authority must be defined through an acceptable process?

Some thoughts... first, your description of the Welsh legislation's scope is an exaggeration -- it doesn't apply to "every statement by every human being from birth until death if it is intended to alter a single vote", the actual legislation specifies statements before or during an elction -- a specific limited time period

Second, I'm not really convinced the distinction you're making about consent and oaths is particularly persuasive -- how then, do you feel about 18 U.S. Code § 1001? -- no oath is required, no consent is required, and the speaker doesn't even have to be formally notified that lying is illegal -- all things you've just identified as important, but clearly the US government doesn't consider as a prerequisite for criminalizing deliberate falsehoods

I'm not suggesting the two laws are identical, but they do illustrate that the absence of an oath, consent or prior notification doesn't mean that the government has acquired the power to dictate truth and that authoritarianism is the inevitable consequence -- and if the fundamental objection is that the state should not have the authority to define truth, then that objection should apply equally to the courts and federal agents -- otherwise, you're simply drawing an arbitrary line between which aspects of state-defined truth you consider acceptable and which you consider authoritarian


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #29721579 -

Bigbadwooof said:
sudly said:
Only if the shapeshifting gatekeepers funded by AIPAC arent re-elected.

Schumer, jeffries and pelosi.


Pelosi is done January 2027...

There is a petition to keep Hakeem Jeffries from being speaker of the house. I signed it, along with many ppl I know, we will see if it has any impact. He is just awwwful.

Obviously, Schumer is fucking awful as well. He's the Milquetoastiest politician in Washington :lol:


Trump endorsed schumer for senate speaker.

Hes a fucking lizard like stevenson, im actually glad stevenson did what she did because the Aipac effect is undeniable now.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #29721580 -

shivas.wisdom said:
I dunno... seems like a slippery slope fallacy -- how is prohibiting knowingly false or misleading statements of fact intended to affect an election, materially different from empowering courts to punish individuals for making false or misleading statements of fact under oath?


In Wales, I imagine itd be for thing like lying under oath, purgery etc.

Not sure if it would be for something like if you run on saying you'll do something, then do the opposite. Seems to be what enlils worried about.

But i mean, any regular citizen would probably be punished for lying if they were in a court system.. lowering the bar for holding lying politicians accountable seems a good thing to try because that bar is over the roof right now.

Might not work in an American society the same way it does it wales, but I think its a great experiment to try. And well see what comes out of it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: sudly]
    #29721589 -

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed Welsh legislation doesn't pose a risk to civil liberties -- my argument is that claiming the Welsh proposal goes too far, while accepting other ways the state is able to punish falsehoods and dictate truth, is an arbitrary distinction without a difference

It's not like we don't have examples of US courts and federal agents using these existing powers for repression -- grand juries being used to investigate and pressure activists, with perjury charges as one of the potential consequences, during the FBIs compaign against eco activists in the 1990s-2000s comes to mind -- with the case of Allison Lance Watson being a particularly good example:

https://www.seashepherd.org.au/latest-news/allison-lance-watson-freed-from-grand-jury-persecu/
https://crimethinc.com/2017/12/27/surviving-a-grand-jury-three-narratives-from-grand-jury-resisters


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #29721670 -

You're incorrect about my position, and i wasnt talking about the welsh law. I was talking about your hypothetical. 18usc1001 is irrelevant to your hypothetical


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #29721673 -

lol wtf , i thought this was a joke post but its just more unhinged shite from trump
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117576618491350292

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvze47p9jeexo

wonder how some will take it if white takes the job and brings the muslims onboard :grin:

Edited by pugster (11/07/26 04:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #29721682 -

My hypothetical concerns the principle of state authority to criminalize false statements -- which was a response to your statement that "The power to punish lies is the power to dictate truth. Once the government has that power, it's only a matter of time before they have complete power over autonomy." while drawing a distinction between Welsh and US governments.

So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?

And why are you treating my hypothetical as though it must be interpreted in isolation, rather than in the context of the immediately preceding discussion?

And why would introducing a new but relevant argument as the discussion develops be unreasonable?

If I'm incorrect about your position, you're free to provide clarification -- but simply declaring my argument irrelevant without explaining why doesn't really advance the discussion


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #29721685 -

shivas.wisdom said:
So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?



Because it does not require an oath and it is nowhere near as broad as your first scenario. You offered two hypothetical and argued they were indistinguishable.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Enlil]
    #29721703 -

I didn't argue that they were indistinguishable -- I asked you how they are materially different, because I wanted to better understand why you believe the Welsh government's power to punish lies "does not bode well" while drawing an explicit distinction between it and the US government, despite the latter also having the power to punish lies.

When you replied by identifying things like prior awareness and consent as important differences, I questioned how those distinctions can still hold up when we consider another existing aspect of the US government's power to punish lies that doesn't have those same features.

Is your only argument that my hypothetical must be interpreted in the broadest terms possible, and that any attempt on my part to narrow my argument is irrelevant?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Enlil]
    #29721705 -

Enlil said:
shivas.wisdom said:
So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?



Because it does not require an oath and it is nowhere near as broad as your first scenario. You offered two hypothetical and argued they were indistinguishable.


What do you think of the idea of making it an oath?

A contractual obligation with well regulated standards.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #29721714 -

shivas.wisdom said:
I didn't argue that they were indistinguishable -- I asked you how they are materially different, because I wanted to better understand why you believe the Welsh government's power to punish lies "does not bode well" while drawing an explicit distinction between it and the US government, despite the latter also having the power to punish lies.

When you replied by identifying things like prior awareness and consent as important differences, I questioned how those distinctions can still hold up when we consider another existing aspect of the US government's power to punish lies that doesn't have those same features.

Is your only argument that my hypothetical must be interpreted in the broadest terms possible, and that any attempt on my part to narrow my argument is irrelevant?


I guess maybe you should have asked about the welsh law as compared to perjury laws? I really don't know what to tell you. You made a specific post which i specifically addressed.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: sudly]
    #29721746 -

sudly said:
Enlil said:
shivas.wisdom said:
So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?



Because it does not require an oath and it is nowhere near as broad as your first scenario. You offered two hypothetical and argued they were indistinguishable.


What do you think of the idea of making it an oath?

A contractual obligation with well regulated standards.


I don't like the idea of criminalizing speech at all,  but i recognize it is necessary in some circumstances. I believe we should do it as little as possible.

I certainly don't see truth or honesty as the highest value.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: Enlil]
    #29721779 -

Enlil said:
Until it's not...

It's only a matter of time before certain truths are deemed official, certified, or whatever word they want to use.  Truth becomes a question of consensus, eventually.

Apply that law to the U.S.  Are we jailing people for claiming 2020 election was stolen?  OR are we jailing people for claiming it wasn't?  Does it depend on the county we're in?  That's just one example, but I'm sure you can think of 100 in 10 minutes.




Yeah but there's a difference between saying something untrue and lying.
When I hear someone say that J6 was a peaceful protest, for example, I know it's not true but how can I tell that they don't believe that it is?  Regardless of the bar in Wales, that would be the determining factor here, no?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: TRUMP 2024 [Re: ballsalsa]
    #29721787 -

State of mind must be proven to convict, but an arrest and charges can be made without that. That's enough to ruin lives and careers.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | | 2126 | 2127 | 2128 | 2129 | 2130 | 2131 | 2132 | 2133 | 2134 | 2135 | 2136 | 2137 | 2138 | 2139 | 2140 | 2141 | 2142 | 2143 | 2144 | 2145 | 2146

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* So Trump started off badly but he's making more sense every day...
( 1 2 3 4 ... 82 83 )		 Patlal 67,341 1,658 06/26/24 04:53 PM
by rxb
* The Trump Phenomenon
( 1 2 3 4 ... 50 51 )		 Count of Sabugosa 42,035 1,006 01/27/16 04:53 PM
by zappaisgod
* Gonzales being investigate by Inspector Gen. For Perjury johnm214 880 13 08/31/07 10:30 PM
by johnm214
* hypothetical question about Obama care
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 imachavel 5,965 79 01/11/13 12:34 AM
by imachavel
* Who Is Voting For Trump?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )		 thewanderer25 13,510 201 08/11/15 05:28 PM
by KauaiOrca
* The Reason Behind Trump's Support and Poll Numbers
( 1 2 3 all )		 Astral Pain 4,742 59 12/12/15 09:57 AM
by hostileuniverse
* Hypothetical Libertarian Economic Question RandalFlagg 642 5 09/27/04 11:10 PM
by hound
* Who will the president canidates for 2024?? starfire_xes 345 5 07/09/17 05:24 AM
by Cinnamon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
509,172 topic views. 3 members, 8 guests and 29 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.048 seconds spending 0.029 seconds on 15 queries.