Speaking Truth in Posts

[Josh]

I’m impressed by anyone who could earn a Ph.D, travel the globe including relocating from the UK to America, and then travel America in an RV… and yet never have heard of Yogi Berra.

[Sudsy]

I’m impressed by anyone who could earn a Ph.D, travel the globe including relocating from the UK to America, and then travel America in an RV… and yet never have heard of Yogi Berra.

Up to this point we primarily kept away from getting into the lives of specific individuals here on a personal level. I would prefer it remain this way in this thread please.

[Bootstrap]

If we want a culture of truth, we need to be able to ask if something is true.

Sometimes people say things online that are not true. Sometimes this is intentional, sometimes unintentional, sometimes someone is living in a dream world of their own construction. If we care about truth, we need to keep asking, "is this true?" If we care about truth, we must not be offended when someone asks that question, and we must be ready to offer facts, within reason, when asked.

If someone takes offense at that ... well, that's a problem. Especially if we want posts that speak truth.

[Sudsy]

If someone says something like 'in my gut I believe this to be true even though I can't prove it' or another way might be 'I have a personal conviction of something being true and I don't care to prove it beyond it being my personal conviction' would these be acceptable replies that we should accept ? My vote is 'yes' and not to badger that person to provide proofs.

[Josh]

If someone says something like 'in my gut I believe this to be true even though I can't prove it' or another way might be 'I have a personal conviction of something being true and I don't care to prove it beyond it being my personal conviction' would these be acceptable replies that we should accept ? My vote is 'yes' and not to badger that person to provide proofs.

Yes, that seems fine to me. That is part and parcel different from someone who claims various facts as being objective truths and then has a litany of excuses when asked to prove them. (I am not pointing the finger at a specific person when I say this; if the shoe fits, wear it.)

[MaxPC]

If someone says something like 'in my gut I believe this to be true even though I can't prove it' or another way might be 'I have a personal conviction of something being true and I don't care to prove it beyond it being my personal conviction' would these be acceptable replies that we should accept ? My vote is 'yes' and not to badger that person to provide proofs.

Indeed and agreed. Continued and perseverative "badgering" of any one individual is considered by some law enforcement authorities as stalking or cyber-stalking.

[Soloist]

If someone says something like 'in my gut I believe this to be true even though I can't prove it' or another way might be 'I have a personal conviction of something being true and I don't care to prove it beyond it being my personal conviction' would these be acceptable replies that we should accept ? My vote is 'yes' and not to badger that person to provide proofs.

I certainly don’t disagree if someone speaks in I statements.
I think you know that that’s not what was going on.
The world is flat, salvation is by works, and and my car drives on tomato juice. If you really knew what they put in gas you would believe me.
I think we can accept opinions and there is no reason to argue. If someone is stating facts that are disputably wrong, such as vaccines cause autism, some people are naturally going to push back on that because they believe it’s dangerous.
If someone is claiming to be underage and talking to a minor when in actuality they’re in their 40s… that’s not just an opinion.

So stating that I believe gasoline is made out of tomatoes, most people just rolled their eyes and move on. If I said I was the president of Exxon and I put tomato juice in your fuel, would you decide that is true because it’s my opinion? I think most people would want to see proof that I was the president before they actually listened to me.

[Josh]

If someone says something like 'in my gut I believe this to be true even though I can't prove it' or another way might be 'I have a personal conviction of something being true and I don't care to prove it beyond it being my personal conviction' would these be acceptable replies that we should accept ? My vote is 'yes' and not to badger that person to provide proofs.

Indeed and agreed. Continued and perseverative "badgering" of any one individual is considered by some law enforcement authorities as stalking or cyber-stalking.

Fortunately, most of us are in America where we still have freedom of speech (for now), and disagreeing with someone on a public Internet forum about public claims they make is still allowed. Likewise, asking someone to prove claims they make doesn't mean you need to fear a knock on the door from the police.

It is also not "stalking" or "cyber-stalking" to participate in a public forum. If someone doesn't like someone replying to their posts... they can leave the forum and stop posting. Or just ignore that poster.

[Bootstrap]

If someone says something like 'in my gut I believe this to be true even though I can't prove it' or another way might be 'I have a personal conviction of something being true and I don't care to prove it beyond it being my personal conviction' would these be acceptable replies that we should accept ? My vote is 'yes' and not to badger that person to provide proofs.

Depends on what they are saying. I don't think that professed sincerity should be treated the same as truth. Especially when the person knows or should know. I do believe that some things are beyond objectively provable truth.

But some are not. In my heart, I believe 2+2 = 5? In my heart, I believe that the holocaust never happened? In my heart, I believe Christians can do whatever they want and ignore what the Bible says? I don't think we should just accept that.

In my heart, I believe that this text is in Swahili (when it is in Hebrew?) In my heart, I believe that this is a picture of Plain Hindus in India?

[Josh]

I give some leeway to someone who sincerely holds beliefs that I happen to think aren’t factual. For example, on this forum, I disagree with JohnHurt on a number of topics, but I also feel like he is sincere. So I can just agree to disagree wit him.

Rather separate is someone who filibusters and insists he is right, engages in deceptive behaviour like fake picture, and then continuously asserts things the rest of us think aren’t factual, despite proof. This kind of thing is very common on Internet forums.