Congress taking on 1st Am by proxy - Page 8

uke2se · 28th February 2021, 10:38 AM

I would agree that a population can be all but inoculated against lies and misinformation with sufficient emphasis on critically examining sources etc in school. However, the reality is that the population of the US isn't inoculated and the virus of misinformation and lies has already spread wide. You now have a situation where near enough half of the voting population have had their minds completely broken by decades of priming from unsavory actors, and these people are not going to come around to reality by learning critical thinking. They already think they are critical thinkers and that's what led them to their current position.

In order to save democracy in the US, you are going to need to do something about this. I've stated what I think is needed, but you are too married to absolute free speech (or at least, you are uncomfortable with where I think you need to draw the line), so the problem will remain.

tyr_13 · 28th February 2021, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by WWBDD

I'm not. The spirit of free inquiry hasn't been honored here for years. I only logged on today to download my avatar gif 'cause I lost my only copy of the file. Figured I'd look around a little since I haven't stopped by in well over a year, and it didn't take 5 minutes to see there aren't many skeptics left here. I mean, c'mon, it's totally appropriate for members of congress to send such a letter. How dare you question their motives? You're not some kinda conspiracy theorist are ya?

Or maybe the motivations behind asking, 'So why are you so caviler about hosting blatant lies that threatened our democracy and caused people to almost literally murder me, personally?' just isn't that hard to figure out.

I mean, it certainly needs interrogated less than why the same people clutching pearls about this either didn't know about or actually supported the GOP doing far worse up to and including excusing the literal murder and dismemberment of our journalists.

lomiller · 1st March 2021, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Seems to me that already qualifies under slander. Don't know why you need a new category of speech restrictions to meet it.

It seems to me you are just making things up as you go along. Do you have some evidence for your claim that Libel and Slander laws can be used to sue someone from asserting “Jews are paedophiles”

smartcooky · 1st March 2021, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

It seems to me you are just making things up as you go along.

And you are surprised by this?

Originally Posted by lomiller

Do you have some evidence for your claim that Libel and Slander laws can be used to sue someone from asserting “Jews are paedophiles”

Indeed, slander and libel laws to do not protect people from being discriminated against, or from being vilified because of their skin colour, or their religion or their gender, or their sexuality.

gnome · 2nd March 2021, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

My understanding is that we don't actually know how to teach critical thinking skills. People try, but studies that follow up on students after taking a critical thinking class always show them as not being any better at critical thinking that peers who didn't take such a class.

That's just my understanding, though. Maybe someone has figured it out since I last read about the subject.

The conclusion I would draw from this is that nurturing and developing critical thinking in children seems to need techniques other than traditional classroom learning.

Ziggurat · 2nd March 2021, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

It seems to me you are just making things up as you go along. Do you have some evidence for your claim that Libel and Slander laws can be used to sue someone from asserting “Jews are paedophiles”

First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles”

The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. That makes it a factual claim about specific people, not just a generalization. A factual false claim which causes damage to a person is actionable, and if people didn't visit a doctor because of this statement (which it seeks to do), that's harm. Why would this be an exception? It's not.

If the claim causes no damage, it's not actionable, but then if it doesn't cause damage, there's no need for it to be actionable.

lomiller · 2nd March 2021, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles”

The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. That makes it a factual claim about specific people, not just a generalization. A factual false claim which causes damage to a person is actionable, and if people didn't visit a doctor because of this statement (which it seeks to do), that's harm. Why would this be an exception? It's not.

If the claim causes no damage, it's not actionable, but then if it doesn't cause damage, there's no need for it to be actionable.

Still not seeing how you get slander or liable out of that. Again, do you have evidence that you can use slander or liable laws to gain redress even with the different wording?

I'm also at a loss as to how this makes a difference to the point I made in my post. Again, it seems like you are just throwing out whatever claims you can come up with to distract form an argument you have no answer to.

smartcooky · 2nd March 2021, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles”

The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not.

OK Zig....

"All Americans are paedophiles"

There you go Zig, and I'll sign my real name to that, and say publicly, it in front of witnesses.

Now go sue me for slander and libel

(oh, and good luck with that)

Cavemonster · 2nd March 2021, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles”

The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. That makes it a factual claim about specific people, not just a generalization. A factual false claim which causes damage to a person is actionable, and if people didn't visit a doctor because of this statement (which it seeks to do), that's harm. Why would this be an exception? It's not.

If the claim causes no damage, it's not actionable, but then if it doesn't cause damage, there's no need for it to be actionable.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect that if making such a broad statement about an ethnic group were enough for a successful defamation suit, then there would be some precedent cases and at least one of them would be very well known.

Could you link to a case that you feel bolsters this view of defamation law. Specifically one where the defamation targetted an ethnic or racial group and not a specific individual?

xjx388 · 2nd March 2021, 12:12 PM

Group libel used to be a thing, but it's not anymore.

28th February 2021, 10:38 AM	#281
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 14,181	I would agree that a population can be all but inoculated against lies and misinformation with sufficient emphasis on critically examining sources etc in school. However, the reality is that the population of the US isn't inoculated and the virus of misinformation and lies has already spread wide. You now have a situation where near enough half of the voting population have had their minds completely broken by decades of priming from unsavory actors, and these people are not going to come around to reality by learning critical thinking. They already think they are critical thinkers and that's what led them to their current position. In order to save democracy in the US, you are going to need to do something about this. I've stated what I think is needed, but you are too married to absolute free speech (or at least, you are uncomfortable with where I think you need to draw the line), so the problem will remain.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list. "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

28th February 2021, 12:30 PM	#282
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,460	Originally Posted by WWBDD I'm not. The spirit of free inquiry hasn't been honored here for years. I only logged on today to download my avatar gif 'cause I lost my only copy of the file. Figured I'd look around a little since I haven't stopped by in well over a year, and it didn't take 5 minutes to see there aren't many skeptics left here. I mean, c'mon, it's totally appropriate for members of congress to send such a letter. How dare you question their motives? You're not some kinda conspiracy theorist are ya? Or maybe the motivations behind asking, 'So why are you so caviler about hosting blatant lies that threatened our democracy and caused people to almost literally murder me, personally?' just isn't that hard to figure out. I mean, it certainly needs interrogated less than why the same people clutching pearls about this either didn't know about or actually supported the GOP doing far worse up to and including excusing the literal murder and dismemberment of our journalists.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

1st March 2021, 11:41 AM	#283
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,462	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Seems to me that already qualifies under slander. Don't know why you need a new category of speech restrictions to meet it. It seems to me you are just making things up as you go along. Do you have some evidence for your claim that Libel and Slander laws can be used to sue someone from asserting “Jews are paedophiles”
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

1st March 2021, 12:05 PM	#284
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,152	Originally Posted by lomiller It seems to me you are just making things up as you go along. And you are surprised by this? Originally Posted by lomiller Do you have some evidence for your claim that Libel and Slander laws can be used to sue someone from asserting “Jews are paedophiles” Indeed, slander and libel laws to do not protect people from being discriminated against, or from being vilified because of their skin colour, or their religion or their gender, or their sexuality.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

2nd March 2021, 04:32 AM	#285
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,247	Originally Posted by Roboramma My understanding is that we don't actually know how to teach critical thinking skills. People try, but studies that follow up on students after taking a critical thinking class always show them as not being any better at critical thinking that peers who didn't take such a class. That's just my understanding, though. Maybe someone has figured it out since I last read about the subject. The conclusion I would draw from this is that nurturing and developing critical thinking in children seems to need techniques other than traditional classroom learning.
	__________________

2nd March 2021, 08:34 AM	#286
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,612	Originally Posted by lomiller It seems to me you are just making things up as you go along. Do you have some evidence for your claim that Libel and Slander laws can be used to sue someone from asserting “Jews are paedophiles” First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles” The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. That makes it a factual claim about specific people, not just a generalization. A factual false claim which causes damage to a person is actionable, and if people didn't visit a doctor because of this statement (which it seeks to do), that's harm. Why would this be an exception? It's not. If the claim causes no damage, it's not actionable, but then if it doesn't cause damage, there's no need for it to be actionable.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

2nd March 2021, 10:00 AM	#287
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,462	Originally Posted by Ziggurat First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles” The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. That makes it a factual claim about specific people, not just a generalization. A factual false claim which causes damage to a person is actionable, and if people didn't visit a doctor because of this statement (which it seeks to do), that's harm. Why would this be an exception? It's not. If the claim causes no damage, it's not actionable, but then if it doesn't cause damage, there's no need for it to be actionable. Still not seeing how you get slander or liable out of that. Again, do you have evidence that you can use slander or liable laws to gain redress even with the different wording? I'm also at a loss as to how this makes a difference to the point I made in my post. Again, it seems like you are just throwing out whatever claims you can come up with to distract form an argument you have no answer to.
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

2nd March 2021, 11:53 AM	#288
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,152	Originally Posted by Ziggurat First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles” The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. OK Zig.... "All Americans are paedophiles" There you go Zig, and I'll sign my real name to that, and say publicly, it in front of witnesses. Now go sue me for slander and libel (oh, and good luck with that)
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd March 2021 at 11:54 AM.

2nd March 2021, 12:00 PM	#289
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,650	Originally Posted by Ziggurat First off, you changed the quote. The quote was “Don’t visit Jewish doctors because Jews are all paedophiles” The truncation of the start is OK, but omitting "all" is not. That makes it a factual claim about specific people, not just a generalization. A factual false claim which causes damage to a person is actionable, and if people didn't visit a doctor because of this statement (which it seeks to do), that's harm. Why would this be an exception? It's not. If the claim causes no damage, it's not actionable, but then if it doesn't cause damage, there's no need for it to be actionable. I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect that if making such a broad statement about an ethnic group were enough for a successful defamation suit, then there would be some precedent cases and at least one of them would be very well known. Could you link to a case that you feel bolsters this view of defamation law. Specifically one where the defamation targetted an ethnic or racial group and not a specific individual?
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,650	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

2nd March 2021, 12:12 PM	#290
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,300	Group libel used to be a thing, but it's not anymore.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,300	__________________ Hello.