Question - Should the Trump trials be televised?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy

If it's live then all of us will see and hear the same thing.

No getting around that.

Transcripts can be edited, censored, misrepresented.

If it's live, then there's no way to manipulate the information.

Transcripts lose the emotional tone.

Exactly!

That’s what my first post was about.

Who cares if it's "emotional"?

Emotions can be manipulated.

The truth is the truth.

I want facts, not truths.

I don't want the MSM's interpretation of the trial.

I want to make my own decision.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy

If it's live then all of us will see and hear the same thing.

No getting around that.

Transcripts can be edited, censored, misrepresented.

If it's live, then there's no way to manipulate the information.

Transcripts lose the emotional tone.

Exactly!

That’s what my first post was about.

Who cares if it's "emotional"?

Emotions can be manipulated.

The truth is the truth.

I want facts, not truths.

I don't want the MSM's interpretation of the trial.

I want to make my own decision.

If something is not factual, then representing it as factual is untruthful.
If something is not true, then it cannot have a factual basis.

Your decision is only opinion (which is most usually a determination based upon incomplete knowledge of facts).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy

If it's live then all of us will see and hear the same thing.

No getting around that.

Transcripts can be edited, censored, misrepresented.

If it's live, then there's no way to manipulate the information.

Transcripts lose the emotional tone.

Exactly!

That’s what my first post was about.

Who cares if it's "emotional"?

Emotions can be manipulated.

The truth is the truth.

I want facts, not truths.

I don't want the MSM's interpretation of the trial.

I want to make my own decision.

If something is not factual, then representing it as factual is untruthful.
If something is not true, then it cannot have a factual basis.

Your decision is only opinion (which is most usually a determination based upon incomplete knowledge of facts).

No.

Facts are objective, truths are subjective.

Ask a Christian if God exists. He will tell the truth and say, "Yes".

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy

If it's live then all of us will see and hear the same thing.

No getting around that.

Transcripts can be edited, censored, misrepresented.

If it's live, then there's no way to manipulate the information.

Transcripts lose the emotional tone.

Exactly!

That’s what my first post was about.

Who cares if it's "emotional"?

Emotions can be manipulated.

The truth is the truth.

I want facts, not truths.

I don't want the MSM's interpretation of the trial.

I want to make my own decision.

If something is not factual, then representing it as factual is untruthful.
If something is not true, then it cannot have a factual basis.

Your decision is only opinion (which is most usually a determination based upon incomplete knowledge of facts).

No.

Facts are objective, truths are subjective.

Ask a Christian if God exists. He will tell the truth and say, "Yes".

I am a Christian and my opinion and observations are that God exists.

I cannot say definitely that God exists, but I have never come across any sort of evidence proving that God does not exist. So even the agnostic case is weaker than the theist case, and the atheist case is weaker still.

Therefore, it is my opinion that God exists, which I believe is true.

Truths are absolute. Beliefs are beliefs and are not.

a reply to: chr0naut

Wait, so you believe in proving negatives as a system of faith?


LoL!!!!

For those following along, this is as far as you can stretch an argument.

a reply to: chr0naut

Subjective

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Wait, so you believe in proving negatives as a system of faith?

LoL!!!!

For those following along, this is as far as you can stretch an argument.

I have often heard atheists and agnostics suggest that there is no direct evidence of God. Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative?

My faith is based upon evidences of God that I see around me, and on my personal experience of God. The case against God is trying to prove that God does not exist on the basis of an absence of evidence.

a reply to: chr0naut

I have often heard atheists and agnostics suggest that there is no direct evidence of God. Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative?

Sure, but you're the first Christian I've ever met who has said:

I cannot say definitely that God exists, but I have never come across any sort of evidence proving that God does not exist.

This seems to be a crisis in your personal faith that hinges upon the proving of a negative.

The case against God is trying to prove that God does not exist on the basis of an absence of evidence.

If God wasn't a subjective term, you may have a point....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Subjective

Yes, beliefs are subjective.

Truths are absolute.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

I have often heard atheists and agnostics suggest that there is no direct evidence of God. Wouldn't that be trying to prove a negative?

Sure, but you're the first Christian I've ever met who has said:

I cannot say definitely that God exists, but I have never come across any sort of evidence proving that God does not exist.

This seems to be a crisis in your personal faith that hinges upon the proving of a negative.

The case against God is trying to prove that God does not exist on the basis of an absence of evidence.

If God wasn't a subjective term, you may have a point....

In the case of weighing of evidence, surely anything is greater than nothing at all?

If my case were only based upon me trying to prove a negative, then that would be a rationally invalid basis for my faith, however, I did say that I had both external and internal evidences of the existence of God.

a reply to: chr0naut

That's fine, however or whatever led you to your faith is A-OK, I'm not judging.

What I am getting to how you had to twist your own personal faith in attempt to justify a pretty clearly absurd notion that truth somehow pervades over facts.

Simply put, truth is a collection of facts or a trail of facts, historically.


However, in this postmodern, clownworld culture, we are told that truth are a myriad of differing things that go so far as breaking reality.

DB used a classic example of the subjectivity of truth in these times.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

That's fine, however or whatever led you to your faith is A-OK, I'm not judging.

What I am getting to how you had to twist your own personal faith in attempt to justify a pretty clearly absurd notion that truth somehow pervades over facts.

Simply put, truth is a collection of facts or a trail of facts, historically.

However, in this postmodern, clownworld culture, we are told that truth are a myriad of differing things that go so far as breaking reality.

DB used a classic example of the subjectivity of truth in these times.

In modern conception there are both 'alternate' truth and 'alternate' facts, with the suggestion that all things are subjective.

Both truth and fact are absolute. Anyone who suggests otherwise is embracing lies.

a reply to: chr0naut

In modern conception there are both 'alternate' truth and 'alternate' facts, with the suggestion that all things are subjective.

Yes, for example:

If something is not factual, then representing it as factual is untruthful.

We have entire criminal statutes that depend upon what a person believes to be truthful.

Both truth and fact are absolute. Anyone who suggests otherwise is embracing lies.

Not the point. Point is what people believe truth to be is rather subjective in modern parlance whereas facts are always facts.

All court proceedings should be televised
OR None should be.
Under NO cicumstances should some be televised.
Equal Justice under the Law.
8 pages of # for such a simple question.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

In modern conception there are both 'alternate' truth and 'alternate' facts, with the suggestion that all things are subjective.

Yes, for example:

If something is not factual, then representing it as factual is untruthful.

We have entire criminal statutes that depend upon what a person believes to be truthful.

Both truth and fact are absolute. Anyone who suggests otherwise is embracing lies.

Not the point. Point is what people believe truth to be is rather subjective in modern parlance whereas facts are always facts.

You wrote "... what people believe truth to be...", the important word there is the qualifier!

You are not arguing that truth itself is relative, but what people believe.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, the term truth in todays parlance is rather elastic and subjective.

...as DB was trying to tell you.


Regarding the topic, facts leading to truth, even within the above context, is paramount to understanding the world around you.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Byrd

And a corrupt court can strike and edit.


See Alex Jones trials for reference.

I have not seen any proof that the Alex Jones trials were edited by the courts. Now... a transcript for the public might have been edited to protect some of the people involved -- and this happens all the time. However, the jurors heard every tiny fact that was presented, including ones that might be left out of a public transcript.

Another example: anyone on trial for spying might not have a full trial transcript released, particularly if government secrets were involved. Likewise someone being prosecuted for stalking and harassment may have redacted transcripts.

Bottom line: the public is NOT entitled to "all the facts." The jury is. The judge is. The defendant and attorneys are.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Why "verify" when you can just see it?

Because you might think that "seeing is believing" but that's not true. A convincing public speaker (particularly one using certain speech patterns, like that of a southern preacher) can often twist or tone words to make a lie sound convincing.

They can't do that with a transcript.

Here's the perfect example -- a transcript AND a video of Trump speaking about nuclear power (maybe.) The tone of the words sounds convincing, the pauses make it sound convincing... a transcript shows just how disjointed and incoherent it is.

If you televise it, then the trial turns into "who can get the best media out of it"... and that's not justice. Eyeballs and enthusiasm, no matter on whose side, is not justice.