ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th April 2018, 02:19 AM   #41
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Now that it is all clear again to all what the First Amendment is and isn't (oh and it isn't absolute in time and space: when I stand under your bedroom window at 2AM with a bullhorn and "exercise free speech", the police is totally in their rights to drag me off if I don't stop), a couple of serious legal questions about the US system.

First: is it possible, in the context of a defamation suit like this, that claimants ask the court to forbid defendant from repeating the same defaming statements that are the subject of the suit?

With "possible", I mean: does the law allow this in principle, and it has at least once in legal history been granted.

With "forbid" I mean: either in principle rule that a repeat of the statements will also be defamatory, or already explicitly set a monetary penalty so it would save the burden of a new lawsuit.

Second: Is it possible to pre-emptively forbid someone to publish defamatory statements? Scenario: defendant is preparing a book, and the claimant gets wind of that and gets hold of (relevant parts of) the draft at the publisher's. Claimant files suit attempting to forbid publication of the book in its current form.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 04:03 AM   #42
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,873
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
First: is it possible, in the context of a defamation suit like this, that claimants ask the court to forbid defendant from repeating the same defaming statements that are the subject of the suit?
My guess is that's gonna be the angle he's gonna try and argue, that all he's doing is "repeating" rumors and that makes it "news."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 04:07 AM   #43
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,547
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I hope he wins.
Why?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 05:23 AM   #44
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,779
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
But the difference is, The Onion is marketed as satire. Its audience is smart enough to recognize that the material is meant to be comical.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yes. If we don't let the crazy nutjob criminally slander the parents of dead children and order assault strikes on pizza parlors with imaginary child sex dungeons today then tomorrow we're gonna be denied "Loved Ones Recall Local Manís Cowardly Battle With Cancer" headlines in an obvious parody newspaper.

That's another major difference. When The Onion uses a real person in its stories, it's always someone famous, which puts them in the "public person" arena when it comes to defamation. Otherwise, they only refer to the generic "Local Man" with their non-specific bits of satire.

Jones went after a specific group of private individuals. Having been the victim of a crime cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that they are public persons for the purposes of defamation, so he'll be facing much stricter standards than The Onion would face in such a lawsuit.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 05:40 AM   #45
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Why?
The legal process is the best method we have for determine if defamation occurred. It is a better world to not be defamed rather than defamed and compensated. A judgement that he did not defame them is a better indicator that they were not defamed than a judgement that he did.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 06:17 AM   #46
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,626
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
That's another major difference. When The Onion uses a real person in its stories, it's always someone famous, which puts them in the "public person" arena when it comes to defamation. Otherwise, they only refer to the generic "Local Man" with their non-specific bits of satire.

Jones went after a specific group of private individuals. Having been the victim of a crime cannot reasonably lead to the conclusion that they are public persons for the purposes of defamation, so he'll be facing much stricter standards than The Onion would face in such a lawsuit.
And how big is the chance that he might thrown in behind bars?
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton

"And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong

Last edited by tinribmancer; 20th April 2018 at 07:49 AM.
tinribmancer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 06:37 AM   #47
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The legal process is the best method we have for determine if defamation occurred. It is a better world to not be defamed rather than defamed and compensated. A judgement that he did not defame them is a better indicator that they were not defamed than a judgement that he did.
The highlighted sentance may be the stupidest statement I have ever read.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:26 AM   #48
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
The highlighted sentance may be the stupidest statement I have ever read.
Do you disagree with it?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:29 AM   #49
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,552
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do you disagree with it?
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

Of course not being found guilty is a better sign of not being guilty than being found guilty.
But that has no bearing on why you would prefer that he isn't found guilty.
You simply haven't answered the question.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:34 AM   #50
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

Of course not being found guilty is a better sign of not being guilty than being found guilty.
But that has no bearing on why you would prefer that he isn't found guilty.
You simply haven't answered the question.
I did. Not being defamed is better than being defamed and compensated. If a fair process sides with him, than it is less likely the families were defamed.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:37 AM   #51
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,075
but if they were indeed defamed...........?

surely him being found guilty and having to compensate them would be a fair process also correct? or is what you are trying to allude without saying it is that it would not be?
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:40 AM   #52
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do you disagree with it?
It only makes sense in the absence of contextual information. In this instance, we know that the relatives of murder victims feel upset and offended that Jones has claimed publically that their dead relations either never existed or are not dead, and that they are all complicit in a crime by lying about the deaths. Given this contextual information, it seems to me that the following may result in an acquittal:

(1) The finding that Jones's statements are factually true. This would be an unpleasant finding in that they almost certainly are not true, and if they were we would be living in a dystopian nightmare.

(2) The finding that Jones never made any such statements. This would be a bizarre finding given that the statements are well documented.

(3) The finding that the statements, though untrue, are not defamatory. This would be an unpleasant finding because it would in effect mean that anybody could be accused of anything out of simple malice, and would have no recourse in law.

So, despite the general principle that it's preferable that no crime has been committed, in this specific instance I disagree very strongly with it. I hope Jones loses because the facts of the case seem clearly established in this instance, and in general it is a better world if principles of justice are upheld than if they are ignored.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:42 AM   #53
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
but if they were indeed defamed...........?

surely him being found guilty and having to compensate them would be a fair process also correct? or is what you are trying to allude without saying it is that it would not be?
If they were defamed they should be compensated. If they were not, then they should not be. The results of a trial is probably our best predictor if defamation occurred. Therefore I hope they are found to not have been defamed. Therefore I hope Jones wins.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:47 AM   #54
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It only makes sense in the absence of contextual information. In this instance, we know that the relatives of murder victims feel upset and offended that Jones has claimed publically that their dead relations either never existed or are not dead, and that they are all complicit in a crime by lying about the deaths. Given this contextual information, it seems to me that the following may result in an acquittal:

(1) The finding that Jones's statements are factually true. This would be an unpleasant finding in that they almost certainly are not true, and if they were we would be living in a dystopian nightmare.

(2) The finding that Jones never made any such statements. This would be a bizarre finding given that the statements are well documented.

(3) The finding that the statements, though untrue, are not defamatory. This would be an unpleasant finding because it would in effect mean that anybody could be accused of anything out of simple malice, and would have no recourse in law.

So, despite the general principle that it's preferable that no crime has been committed, in this specific instance I disagree very strongly with it. I hope Jones loses because the facts of the case seem clearly established in this instance, and in general it is a better world if principles of justice are upheld than if they are ignored.

Dave
But you maybe didnt describe defamation. You said they are upset. You didn't say they suffered damages.my understanding is that simple hurt feelings are not defamation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:51 AM   #55
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If they were defamed they should be compensated. If they were not, then they should not be. The results of a trial is probably our best predictor if defamation occurred. Therefore I hope they are found to not have been defamed. Therefore I hope Jones wins.
you keep dancing around what has been asked. Are you saying that if they were defamed, that the results of a trial indicating so would not be a best predictor?
you only use the phrase - The results of a trial is probably our best predictor if defamation occurred - only when describing the win you want. not the loss that is also possible.
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:53 AM   #56
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But you maybe didnt describe defamation. You said they are upset. You didn't say they suffered damages.my understanding is that simple hurt feelings are not defamation.
Being accused of a crime and losing standing in the community is a damage. Mental distress is a damage. There's a threshold, and the job of the court is to determine what that threshold is, but in this instance my personal opinion is that it's been met and that recompense should be sought.

In general, we're allowed to use context to inform judgements. I realise you disagree with that principle, but let's not let this thread be derailed into yet another discussion of that.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:54 AM   #57
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
you keep dancing around what has been asked. Are you saying that if they were defamed, that the results of a trial indicating so would not be a best predictor?
you only use the phrase - The results of a trial is probably our best predictor if defamation occurred - only when describing the win you want. not the loss that is also possible.
If they were defamed, it seems like a trial verdict that they were defamed would be more likely.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:56 AM   #58
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Being accused of a crime and losing standing in the community is a damage. Mental distress is a damage. There's a threshold, and the job of the court is to determine what that threshold is, but in this instance my personal opinion is that it's been met and that recompense should be sought.

In general, we're allowed to use context to inform judgements. I realise you disagree with that principle, but let's not let this thread be derailed into yet another discussion of that.

Dave
You didn't say they lost standing in the community. I don't know if mental distress without loss of standing is damages for defamation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:58 AM   #59
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If they were defamed, it seems like a trial verdict that they were defamed would be more likely preferable.
FTFY.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:59 AM   #60
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
FTFY.

Dave
Do you think it is equally likely or less likely?

I think more likely is accurate.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 07:59 AM   #61
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You didn't say they lost standing in the community.
It should be obvious. They've been accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:01 AM   #62
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It should be obvious. They've been accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Dave
It isn't obvious. I have no idea the status of their standing in their community. The community may have rallied around them because of jones's garbage statements.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:09 AM   #63
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
you keep dancing around what has been asked. Are you saying that if they were defamed, that the results of a trial indicating so would not be a best predictor?
you only use the phrase - The results of a trial is probably our best predictor if defamation occurred - only when describing the win you want. not the loss that is also possible.
Analogy

I go in for a medical test. I want the results to be accurate. I hope they are negative.

No one thinks I want the results to be negative regardless if I have an illness or not. I'm also not taking the test necessarily with the presumption that i don't have the illness.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 20th April 2018 at 08:11 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:10 AM   #64
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,873
Jesus Christ down the hole we go again.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:26 AM   #65
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Analogy

I go in for a medical test. I want the results to be accurate. I hope they are negative.

No one thinks I want the results to be negative regardless if I have an illness or not. I'm also not taking the test necessarily with the presumption that i don't have the illness.

but we are not talking about you and a mythical medical test.
Whip is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:30 AM   #66
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,626
Are you a Sandy Hook truther or something? You're literally defending Alex Jones. One of the biggest scam artists and ******** that's walking on this planet in the past 20 years.
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton

"And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong
tinribmancer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:31 AM   #67
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,291
BTC makes a fundamental mistake: he pretends that a court's decision can alter historical facts.
What Jones is accuser of happened in the past, and no verdict will ever change that. The pain and damage inflicted on the victins (if any) was inflicted in the past, and no verdict can ever uninflict it.

The only thing that can change is people's OPINION about whether or not the deed crosses the applicable legal thresholds. Indeed, these thresholds may vary in the future (some things that used to be crimes now are considered rights).

We know at least some of the historical facts. Enough to form a judgement, perhaps assess probabilities. No court decision is necessary.

Now Bob prefers a not-guilty finding, believing that such a finding would lower the probability that Jones is criminally or civilly liable below a threshold of significance, but that is an unsure bet, and betrays a lack of understanding of how Bayesian inference works. If Jones us, in fact, guilty then a not-guilty verdict is most definitely not preferable, because it cannot possibly change the historical fact - it would add a miscarriage of justice on top of the damages already incurred.

Not using information already recorded in history to form judgement is the opposite of skeptical and enlightened. It's plain dumb.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:35 AM   #68
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,480
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
BTC makes a fundamental mistake: he pretends that a court's decision can alter historical facts.
What Jones is accuser of happened in the past, and no verdict will ever change that. The pain and damage inflicted on the victins (if any) was inflicted in the past, and no verdict can ever uninflict it.

The only thing that can change is people's OPINION about whether or not the deed crosses the applicable legal thresholds. Indeed, these thresholds may vary in the future (some things that used to be crimes now are considered rights).

We know at least some of the historical facts. Enough to form a judgement, perhaps assess probabilities. No court decision is necessary.

Now Bob prefers a not-guilty finding, believing that such a finding would lower the probability that Jones is criminally or civilly liable below a threshold of significance, but that is an unsure bet, and betrays a lack of understanding of how Bayesian inference works. If Jones us, in fact, guilty then a not-guilty verdict is most definitely not preferable, because it cannot possibly change the historical fact - it would add a miscarriage of justice on top of the damages already incurred.

Not using information already recorded in history to form judgement is the opposite of skeptical and enlightened. It's plain dumb.
See post #47
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:55 AM   #69
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

We know at least some of the historical facts. Enough to form a judgement, perhaps assess probabilities. No court decision is necessary.
I disagree that it is enough to form a judgement.

ETA: just like the medical test, while I have some evidence that the test will come back positive, I hope it is negative.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 20th April 2018 at 08:58 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 08:59 AM   #70
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by tinribmancer View Post
Are you a Sandy Hook truther or something? You're literally defending Alex Jones. One of the biggest scam artists and ******** that's walking on this planet in the past 20 years.
I'm the opposite. It is probably more than likely he committed defamation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:01 AM   #71
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,291
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I disagree that it is enough to form a judgement.

ETA: just like the medical test, while I have some evidence that the test will come back positive, I hope it is negative.
You conveniently ignore almost the entirety of my post, to form a reply that is stupid and most obviously FALSE on its face. Of course any non-zero amount of information, whether reliable or not, is enough to form a judgement.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:03 AM   #72
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I disagree that it is enough to form a judgement.

ETA: just like the medical test, while I have some evidence that the test will come back positive, I hope it is negative.
Second ETA: I'm bad at Bayesian inference. Wouldn't a finding for Jones alter our probability that he didn't defame?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:05 AM   #73
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You conveniently ignore almost the entirety of my post, to form a reply that is stupid and most obviously FALSE on its face. Of course any non-zero amount of information, whether reliable or not, is enough to form a judgement.
Let me clarify. I don't think we should be going around forming and sharing pointless judgements with little information.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 20th April 2018 at 09:06 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:09 AM   #74
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Let me clarify. I don't think we should be going around forming and sharing pointless judgements with little information.
Your expression of hope that Jones wins would appear to fall solidly into this category.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:10 AM   #75
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Your expression of hope that Jones wins would appear to fall solidly into this category.

Dave
How? Wanting a negative test result on a medical screening is not a judgement that I don't have the disease.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:15 AM   #76
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,159
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How? Wanting a negative test result on a medical screening is not a judgement that I don't have the disease.
Arguments by analogy are as worthless as judgements without context.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:18 AM   #77
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Question

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Arguments by analogy are as worthless as judgements without context.

Dave
Then remove the analogy. Hoping a finding that no one was defamed in a process available to determine if someone was defamed is not a judgement that a person wasn't defamed. It is independent of any judgement if a person was defamed or not.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 20th April 2018 at 09:21 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:36 AM   #78
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
This is an odd place for this thread to be located. It's not a conspiracy that the parents are suing Alex Jones.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:39 AM   #79
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,345
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How? Wanting a negative test result on a medical screening is not a judgement that I don't have the disease.
Your analogy doesn't really work. A negative medical test is not proof that you don't have a disease. False negatives occur, just like bad judgements at trial. Also, pretty much everyone wants to not have a disease, which doesn't apply to defamation trials. Not everyone wants the defendant to win.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 09:42 AM   #80
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Your analogy doesn't really work. A negative medical test is not proof that you don't have a disease. False negatives occur, just like bad judgements at trial. Also, pretty much everyone wants to not have a disease, which doesn't apply to defamation trials. Not everyone wants the defendant to win.
I also said in a similar post we want tests to be accurate. I want the right verdict. I hope the right verdict is a judgement for Jones because I hope people do not suffer damages.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.