I wanted to share my thoughts on truthfulness
I think there are two points to learn here.
When dealing with other adults, which approach do you think works best?
Everyone has a right to their opinions. However, authority has to come from one source, truth, which can be surmised from personal experience, historical or written documents, and is advanced by argumentation and logic.
In any case whether or not one actually has authority when talking to people depends ultimately on whether one can respect the truth of ones sources. One may have a a legal right to make up facts, invent nonsense, or abuse texts but never not a moral one. The immediate audience might believe a lie, but a lie remains a lie no matter how democratically accepted it is.
People may have the privilege to lie, but that is because none of us have the power of omnisciousness to judge all arguments. We aren't always able to judge what is fact and what is not, what is opinion and spin, or what is simply a different view of the same animal -- so there is plenty of room for disagreement. Thus the "privilege" of lying is not due to any inherent legal privilege or right but simply due to that gray area of human doubt, confusion and multiple views, and because the rest of us don't have the right to make judgments on factuality absent clear facts. The privilege of lying is simply a unintended side effect of the right of freedom we all possess and the poor quality of both natural and artificial sources of information.
We all have a natural born freedom to be idiots or wise people, savants or fools. However, this argument implies that there are some limits to how much people can spin and abuse the truth before they reach beyond reality into pure fiction or even lying. And the reason is that lies are about untruth, which are ultimately unsustaining, untenable, instable, and self destructive to the systems or communities that entertain them.
Chris
Posted by cholte at December 17, 2007 06:33 AMChristopher,
It all begins with what is an accepted fact and what is an accepted opinion.
It has ben my experience, most people can not recognize the diffrence between the two; fact or opinion.
I have read where people have researched everything from their computer without ever leaving home. Would those be fact based results or just someone else's version of their opinions available on the internet presented as facts?
Some thoughts on being thoughtful.
One person's observation of idiocy is another person's rational view.
How do you rationalize your views of opinion and fact?
I think when you approach a discussion from the perspective of an argument, you have already lost the discussion/argument because you created sides when no sides where necesary for understanding to begin and grow.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick at December 17, 2007 01:24 PMYou really have a point. Still there are facts and these are separate from opinions. It's not even a matter of whether a fact is accepted as a fact or not. It's just whether or not an opinion is based on fact or not. Even with a factual attitude there will always be differences of opinions. I rationalize my facts by dealing with uncertainty up front. If I don't know whether a particular opinion is in fact true or not I'll give it a confidence level. It's like I'm predicting the weather. If I say something is 50/50 it means I'm just guessing.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at December 17, 2007 04:25 PMChris,
I think it is even more basic than as you presented.
Facts are proven by more than one person and are accepted as facts.
Opinions are just that non-facts. Opinions can be based on facts, but those than become theories, and as yet unproven facts.
Many times, people hold out a partial thruth or opinion based on a factual component and a non-factual component, making separating fact from fiction more difficult.
Separating fact from non-facts becomes in itself a potential argument or difference of opinions.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick at December 17, 2007 04:44 PMYou are right. Separating facts from non-facts is the key to having realistic and nurturative discussions rather than arguments as well. Whether something is a fact or not is independent of whether it is accepted as a fact or not.
However, opinions are also "views." More than one view of the same subset of facts can be true because facts are about a reality that is in constant flux. The blind men and the elephant analogy applies to views. We aren't always sure what we are looking for or at. Faith is the ability to believe that something exists one doesn't have an immediate view of. A view can be factual and still give false information.
To me the central point is that, given the already difficult subject, people should try to be as factual as possible -- and yet they don't. When everybody involved in a conversation sees it as an exchange of views (trying to see the elephant) everyone comes out better.
Posted by: Chris at December 18, 2007 10:32 AMThe dialogue approach is superior, and would seem the best way of bringing people to the truth.
However there will also be times when the force of authority will be used to compel people to act as if they agreed whether they do or not. These may be extreme situations i.e. encouraging minors to use drugs, etc.
The problem with the second method is what constitutes a crisis great enough that it should be employed? Those who are true believers in an ideology too often feel that the end justifies the means and are quite willing to force their views on others.
ch
His "out of channel" information to the Soviets was the basis of his accusation as a spy as well as the fact that the Soviets gave him a code name. He was not a "dupe". He knew exactly what he was doing. He is a traitor. And if you think otherwise, then you are a fool. He authorized that money printing plates be given to the Soviets. Cost the USA $250 million in 1946. According to the previous information received from [Venona] regarding Jurist, during April, 1944, he had reported on conversations between the then Secretary of State Hull and Vice President Wallace. He also reported on Wallace's proposed trip to China. On August 5, 1944, he reported to the Soviets that he was confident of President Roosevelt's victory in the coming elections unless there was a huge military failure. He also reported that Truman's nomination as Vice President was calculated to secure the vote of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. It was also reported that Jurist was willing for any self-sacrifice in behalf of the MGB but was afraid that his activities, if exposed, might lead to a political scandal and have an effect on the elections. It was also mentioned that he would be returning to Washington, D. C., on August 17, 1944. The new information from [Venona] indicates that Jurist and Morgenthau were to make a trip to London and Normandy and leaving the United States on August 5, 1944.
I assume you are referring to the long ago post on Henry White
http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/holte/archives/000123.html
I'm not a fool to think otherwise. The pre-ponderance of evidence casts severe doubts on the accuracy or applicably of material from the Venona source. There is nothing in your post that has anything to do with the actions a genuine spy would have taken. We were allies with the Soviets at the time you mention, and he was giving economic advice to people who needed better advice then they were then getting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White
"This is the only case in which Bentley biographer Kathryn Olmstead concluded that Bentley "was lying about her [own] role,"[18] citing historian Bruce Craig's conclusion "that the whole 'scheme' was a complete fabrication."[19]"
Bentley had a reason to lie, she was an actual spy who had to prove her worth or die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bentley