Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Intentional omissions of relevant facts constitute lies. Do you disagree with that or do you disagree that the facts are relevant? Or what?


sort by: page size:

When you omit relevant facts, your arguments are weaker.

Heh! Facts are always relevant when you are debating in good faith. People who find facts not supporting their beliefs argue dishonesty that doesn't mean facts are not relevant.

Dismissing facts as lies is just lying. It should not be brushed off as an acceptable position.

Are the facts wrong?

Pointing out wrong "facts" that are used as arguments isn't relevant?

A curated set of facts or as you call it “incomplete, but not counter-factual” is not the truth. All facts are the truth and that’s what non opinion news should be reporting.

And yet it's still important to not misstate facts regardless of whether or not they are relevant, because other people will take those supposed facts and apply them in other ways then you did.

The argument was that your supporting facts don’t support your argument, so the facts are right there?

If the facts don't happen to conform to the narrative, offense is meaningless.

You can distort the truth with facts, simply omit the facts you disagree with.

I think they're also saying that there's issues of fact?

> The facts are what the facts are.

What about alternative facts?


What specific facts in the reporting do you take issue with? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

How people prioritize issues based on facts is different from whether the facts are true. I agree that you or I can disagree on prioritization of issues. People can also be wrong about which facts they believe. For example, if someone believes that New York City is the capital of the state of New York, they're factually wrong. They're misinformed.

For a more political fact, Barack Obama either was or was not born in the US. People made political decisions based on whether or not this is true. For the argument I'm making, it doesn't matter whether or not it's true. It's that a fact is politically important.

If you're arguing that which facts are true is ultimately relative, I'm not going to chase you down that particular rabbit hole.

Perhaps what I'm saying is obvious and trivial to you, and we're speaking past each other.


Presentation of opinion as fact, and selection of a set of facts that support your opinion, with an accompanying omission of those that don't, is controversial.

If you call something someone else says a lie, that's not a statement of opinion. You're saying they said something false. That's a factual matter.

What is factually incorrect then as far as this discussion goes?

The author doesn’t seem to say which is correct. Are the facts of the matter irrelevant here?

All I said was that the particular facts of a situation are relevant. Hard to believe that is a controversial point.
next

Legal | privacy