What's wrong with having a "Ministry of Truth"? (Page 2)

Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

Biden says when the 2nd Amendment was written you couldn’t own a cannon. That’s disinformation.

Now what?
______________

If the "disinformation" is repeated over and over and is having a significant impact because people believe it, then it should be investigated by the "Ministry of Truth" (or whatever it's called) and a determination made as to the truth of it.

So if Biden is repeating this claim and is successful in winning support for his policy by saying it, and yet it's not true, then the "Ministry of Truth" should investigate it and issue its finding, and even issue a subpoena to Biden to present his evidence.
28 days ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

Lump: That's a "DEFUND THE POLICE!" argument…. To say government must never do anything because it's the worst offender of all means eliminating the government altogether.


And yet I never said “government must never do anything”.
______________

You said if the government does it, that's having the fox guard the chicken coop, because the government is the worst offender.

By that argument you'd have to eliminate the government from many or most of its policing functions, because government itself is often the worst offender. Your logic is that if the government ever commits the offence, then it cannot be allowed to do that policing.

So if you're now retracting that "fox guards the chicken coop" argument, we now agree: It is appropriate for the government to investigate claims people make, if it's an important public matter and there is potential damage to the public interest from the disinformation someone is spreading.
____________

laffer80:

On the contrary, I’ve said the courts are legitimate. I’ve said Congress and the Executive should exist. I’ve objected only to one thing .. a Ministry of Truth.
_____________

But that's what the Congress and the courts are, in part. They do have investigations into claims to determine what the truth is. So they already do what the "Ministry of Truth" would do, except not as well as it needs to be done.

So you can't be in favor of having courts or Congress if you oppose the truth-seeking function that the "Ministry of Truth" would serve.


28 days ago Report
0
Lumpenproletariat
Lumpenproletariat:

laffer80:

YOU are using the DEFUND THE POLICE argument. I object to ONE THING and you accuse me of objecting to EVERYTHING.
_______________

OK, then you do not object to the "Ministry of Truth" -- you object only to it having power to arrest people for saying things or to censor speech.

But you don't object to having a "Ministry of Truth" to investigate possible disinformation claims about important public matters, to determine which claims are true and which ones false, and issue its findings so that the public is better informed about it.

Like a jury or court makes findings of what is true and not true.
28 days ago Report
0
laffer80
laffer80: Lump. You’re just too dumb for me to take seriously.

Saying things like “By that argument you'd have to eliminate the government from many or most of its policing functions,” is completely illogical. Which is fine, you can be illogical. But you use illogic to then put words in my mouth. No, it doesn’t follow that your illogic means i want to eliminate all of government. Lol. That’s just bizarre thinking.

Lump: “So you can't be in favor of having courts or Congress if you oppose the truth-seeking function”.

Yes. I can. As i repeatedly say. You are just too dumb to understand that i can, and do, and that it is very consistent with NOT being a Ministry of Truth.

Lump: “But you don't object to having a "Ministry of Truth…”.

Lol. Yes. I do. For the 1000th time.

Ok. I’m done. You’re only trying to convince me what i think. Lol Feel free to go on and on telling me what i believe and what i want. I’ll just sit back and laugh. Lol. Have fun. 😉
27 days ago Report
0
freedomfirst1797
freedomfirst1797: Having a "Ministry of Truth" sounds like a good idea... but only when you are in charge. If the opposition is running things, then it isn't something you want to see.

Both parties are guilty of this. The Democrats called dissent "an act of patriotism" when they were the minority party..... but once they gained the majority they started calling it "an act of treason."

Both parties would ban books if they could. They would just ban different books, based on their political beliefs.

And it always amazes me how some people can think that the Constitution is sacrosanct.... except for the 1st and 2nd Amendments. And how others feel the U.S. Supreme Court should have the final say..... unless they disagree with their decision. Then they want to pack the court!
14 days ago Report
1