Is the truth a defense on boards.ie?

Brown Bomber

I've recently had an incident that has raised a broader question for me?

Can you be punished for making a true statement if it upsets someone else?

Ickle Magoo

The "truth" is subjective tho isn't it? I've heard people say they speak the truth as white supremacists or advocating the "one true church" or whatever - one man's truth is another's pile of cod-wallop really, isn't it?

Brown Bomber

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The "truth" is subjective tho isn't it? I've heard people say they speak the truth as white supremacists or advocating the "one true church" or whatever - one man's truth is another's pile of cod-wallop really, isn't it?

OK. Replace truth with verifiable facts.

Ickle Magoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. Replace truth with verifiable facts.

Still depends - verified by whom? Why? In what context? Plenty of verified "facts" have later been recanted as a load of crap...and that's before you get into the whole, boards is privately owned/no free speech stuff.

Is this an actual Boards feedback or have I wandered into yet another bitch about thread or post being action/should be in DRP?

Steve

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've recently had an incident that has raised a broader question for me?

Can you be punished for making a true statement if it upsets someone else?

It depends on where it was posted, what the forum charter is and what it was in response to.

In short, yes, if it breaches site or local rules.

Brown Bomber

Steve wrote: »

It depends on where it was posted, what the forum charter is and what it was in response to.

In short, yes, if it breaches site or local rules.

Which rule, site or local could be breached by stating a fact?

Brown Bomber

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Still depends - verified by whom? Why? In what context? Plenty of verified "facts" have later been recanted as a load of crap...and that's before you get into the whole, boards is privately owned/no free speech stuff.

I'll pose a hypothetical example. The government publishes figures for 2010 that the demographic most likely to cause death through dangerous driving is 18-25 year old males. I state this fact and it upsets 18-25 year old males.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is this an actual Boards feedback or have I wandered into yet another bitch about thread or post being action/should be in DRP?

Yes, it's an actual feedback thread. It's a genuine question and to be honest I don't appreciate a genuine question being referred perjoratively to as a "bitch".

Steve

There's a site rule - the prime directive if you will - that says 'don't be a dick'. That encompasses a lot of behaviour - mostly posting stuff that is insulting to other users but it depends on the circumstances.

As for local rules, there are hundreds of forums here, each with their own specific rules so I can't comment on that without knowing what you are referring to and where it was posted.

Ickle Magoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll pose a hypothetical example. The government publishes figures for 2010 that the demographic most likely to cause death through dangerous driving is 18-25 year old males. I state this fact and it upsets 18-25 year old males.

Well, it would surely depend on your wording and location of the thread in question. Stating that a government finding found X while posing a question in humanities is a different kettle of fish to posting "cos yer a bloke yer goin' to be a crap driver" in motoring - you get the jist....hypothetical examples are, unfortunately, just that - there are plenty of things we can say or do which are acceptable in some forums and not in others so querying generalities is a bit useless in establishing, well, anything.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, it's an actual feedback thread. It's a genuine question and to be honest I don't appreciate a genuine question being referred perjoratively to as a "bitch".

An awful lot of feedback threads seem to be generated as a passive aggressive swipe at moderator action and to try to circumvent site protocols - you seem loath to actually name the issue you have and where and that begs the question why. As Steve says, without knowing exactly what was said and where, it's very difficult to judge if there is an issue that should be looked at or you fell foul of failing to read specific forum charter rules/ethos...

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll pose a hypothetical example. The government publishes figures for 2010 that the demographic most likely to cause death through dangerous driving is 18-25 year old males. I state this fact and it upsets 18-25 year old males.

It depends how you state it. If you just point out those figures, I can't see why anyone would get upset. If you said all 18-25 year old males are hypocrites for wanting cheaper insurance but constantly driving dangerously, that's a) subjective, b) a generalisation and c) their choice, whether you believe it's right or wrong.

There's a difference between stating a fact and stating your opinion based on a fact.

Penn

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

An awful lot of feedback threads seem to be generated as a passive aggressive swipe at moderator action and to try to circumvent site protocols - you seem loath to actually name the issue you have and where and that begs the question why. As Steve says, without knowing exactly what was said and where, it's very difficult to judge if there is an issue that should be looked at or you fell foul of failing to read specific forum charter rules/ethos...

This issue has arisen as a result of an infraction I gave Brown Bomber on the Conspiracy Theories forum. Long story short, a Catholic is allowed to join the Freemasons, but according to the Catholic Church, any Catholic who does should be excommunicated. Brown Bomber stated that any Freemason who calls himself a catholic is a complete hypocrite.

We do have users on the forum who are Freemasons and Catholic (excommunication means you are still a Catholic). Not only that, but we all know many Catholics who use condoms etc, which they shouldn't. A person's religion and how they practise it is their own. A hypocrite is someone who say something is wrong, but does it anyway. But 'wrong' is subjective, and Brown Bomber calling them hypocrites is his opinion, not a 'verifiable fact'.

For what it's worth, I've since asked for the infraction to be overturned after discussions with Brown Bomber via PM, as I felt I had made my point and it wasn't a serious enough issue to argue over. But I'm happy for this thread to continue.

Steve

Penn wrote: »

But I'm happy for this thread to continue.

It's not feedback though - this is what DRP is for

justsomebloke

"poster A is a complete tool and idiot"

It could be true but is still abusive and will probably get you banned. People often hide behind "truths" as an excuse to do something they shouldn't be doing. So in my opinion it is possible to punished for truthful statements if you don't try and put it in a civil manner

Penn

Steve wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

But I'm happy for this thread to continue.

It's not feedback though - this is what DRP is for

Yeah but as I've overturned the infraction, does it still count as a DRP? At this point, it's a disagreement which I think Brown Bomber is looking for alternative, outsider input on. Like he said, "I've recently had an incident that has raised a broader question for me?"

I just felt that his hypothetical example was a poor example, and wanted to clarify things.

Steve

Penn wrote: »

Yeah but as I've overturned the infraction, does it still count as a DRP? At this point, it's a disagreement which I think Brown Bomber is looking for alternative, outsider input on.

The general question of 'is posting a truth punishable' has been answered imo and that's what this forum is for. The specifics of this did belong in DRP as it's origins were a mod / user dispute.

Brown Bomber

Steve wrote: »

The general question of 'is posting a truth punishable' has been answered imo and that's what this forum is for. The specifics of this did belong in DRP as it's origins were a mod / user dispute.

It's not a DRP thread it's a question of boards policy. As I've said the incident was just the spark for a more general question. I'm interested in the answer because I want to stay within the rules, not bend them.

Brown Bomber

Steve wrote: »

There's a site rule - the prime directive if you will - that says 'don't be a dick'. That encompasses a lot of behaviour - mostly posting stuff that is insulting to other users but it depends on the circumstances.

Okay, what if there is a discussion on Hezbollah in the politics forum and someone describes them as a terrorist group?

They are designated as terrorists generally by the West but as resistance fighters generally by the Islamic world and Hezbollah themselves.

What if someone states the fact that Hezbollah are terrorists and it upsets users who are Hezbollah members or those who view them as legitimate resistance fighters?

Overheal

No policy that I'm aware of defends it Bomber. It seems to be fairly common sense what is Fair Comment and what is not, the need to define it has a set law seems moot. That, and the more things you define in stone the more loopholes you make, and all that really does is open up avenues for low level trolling.

As far as I know it's a case by case basis, and in my opinion it should stay that way. There's really not much point in concocting hypothetical Hezbollah whataboutery to force the Mods to set some kind of precedent.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

It depends how you state it. If you just point out those figures, I can't see why anyone would get upset. If you said all 18-25 year old males are hypocrites for wanting cheaper insurance but constantly driving dangerously, that's a) subjective, b) a generalisation and c) their choice, whether you believe it's right or wrong.

There's a difference between stating a fact and stating your opinion based on a fact.

I agree. However, to call someone a hypocrite, something that is dictionary defined and with which there is no grey area is not a generalisation nor subjective.

hyp·o·crite

   [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

So for example you could call Gay Byrne a hypocrite if he was caught drink-driving or speeding. It's not an insult. It would be a fact.

Overheal

"Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[3] However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired.[4] In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#The_Catholic_Church

As it transpires, calling Catholic Freemasons 'hypocrites' is not a statement of fact.

Morag

If you are telling verifiable facts to the aim of blackening the 'good' name of someone then under irish law it doesn't matter if it's true or not, you are defaming them and where that leads to them loosing out money due to the damaging their reputation they can take you to court. Alas the 'truth' or verifiable facts is not a bullet proof defence.

Steve

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So for example you could call Gay Byrne a hypocrite if he was caught drink-driving or speeding. It's not an insult. It would be a fact.

IMO that would be an opinion, not a fact.

Irrelevant anyway as it would still depend on where it was posted. As Overheal pointed out, if this was defined in stone then it would create loopholes for the rules lawyers out there - that's why we don't do it. If we keep it fuzzy then it allows the mods / cmods / admins to deal with stuff by using common sense and deciding what's in the best interests of the site. It all comes back to the 'don't be a dick' rule - 99% of people here can discuss things in an an objective manner without getting upset, that's really all it takes.

Sharrow wrote: »

If you are telling verifiable facts to the aim of blackening the 'good' name of someone then under irish law it doesn't matter if it's true or not, you are defaming them and where that leads to them loosing out money due to the damaging their reputation they can take you to court. Alas the 'truth' or verifiable facts is not a bullet proof defence.

Not quite, for defamation to be actionable, the claim must be false.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

It depends how you state it. If you just point out those figures, I can't see why anyone would get upset. If you said all 18-25 year old males are hypocrites for wanting cheaper insurance but constantly driving dangerously, that's a) subjective, b) a generalisation and c) their choice, whether you believe it's right or wrong.

There's a difference between stating a fact and stating your opinion based on a fact.

I agree. However, to call someone a hypocrite, something that is dictionary defined and with which there is no grey area is not a generalisation nor subjective.

hyp·o·crite

   [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

So for example you could call Gay Byrne a hypocrite if he was caught drink-driving or speeding. It's not an insult. It would be a fact.

And how do you know who has religious beliefs, and who only pretends to have religious beliefs? Again, how people choose to follow their religion is up to them. Do you think every single Catholic agrees with and follows every single part of the religion?

'Hypocrite' is subjective. What's wrong to me may not be wrong to you, and has everything to do with the individual and their beliefs and what they consider to be moral or not. I'd agree with you that, in my opinion, Gay Byrne would be a hypocrite. He tells people not to drink drive, and then he drink drives.

Did any of the people you call 'complete hypocrites' say a Freemason can't be a catholic? No, that's something which is part of their religion and imposed on them by others, but which they themselves may not agree with. In this case, the only true Catholic Freemason who would be a hypocrite is the Pope

easychair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So for example you could call Gay Byrne a hypocrite if he was caught drink-driving or speeding. It's not an insult. It would be a fact.

It probably means he in falliable, but its quite possible to hold a view that drunk driving is wrong, and still hold that view oneself, even if one does it.

A hypocrite is one who pretends to hold a view in public, but who doesn't hold it in private.

The charters on boards are open to interpretation largely at the moderators discretion, and context and the particular situation are always relevant too.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I have yet to see BB provide a truly objective example.

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

"Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[3] However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired.[4] In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#The_Catholic_Church

As it transpires, calling Catholic Freemasons 'hypocrites' is not a statement of fact.

Well it is, the definition of hypocrite again:

noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

A person (Catholic-Mason) whose actions (continued membership of a masonic lodge, which is strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church) belie stated beliefs (claim to be a Catholic)

A Catholic who claims to be a mason is by definition of hypocrite, a hypocrite.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

And how do you know who has religious beliefs, and who only pretends to have religious beliefs? Again, how people choose to follow their religion is up to them. Do you think every single Catholic agrees with and follows every single part of the religion?

The bolded part is what's causing the confusion I think. Membership of a Church is not simply an ideology, you opt-in to become part of a society and the society has rules. It's not Pick N' Mix, you can't be a 60% Catholic or a 20% Muslim, if that was the case you could simultaneously be both.

Simillarly you can't be simultaneously be a mason and a Catholic without violating the Catholic Church's rulings. If you intentionally disregard the rulings whilst claiming to follow the rulings you are an obvious hypocrite.

Penn wrote: »

'Hypocrite' is subjective. What's wrong to me may not be wrong to you, and has everything to do with the individual and their beliefs and what they consider to be moral or not.

Again, it's matters not what the individual thinks personally, it's not their call. They are free to start their own society.

Penn wrote: »

Did any of the people you call 'complete hypocrites' say a Freemason can't be a catholic? No, that's something which is part of their religion and imposed on them by others

Nothing is "imposed" to be fair. They choose themselves to be Catholic and everything that goes with it, including the religious edicts. They opt-in

Penn wrote: »

but which they themselves may not agree with. [/QUOTE
If they don't agree with it then they should start their own religion/society based on their own percieved truisms where they are not in a constant state of "grave sin"

Steve

Ah, so this thread should really be titled "Is belief in an imaginary being (who may or may not be a different imaginary being that other cults believe in) a defence on boards.ie"?

Penn

Of course it matters what the individual thinks. If they don't think that what they are doing is wrong, they cannot, by definition, be a hypocrite

Orion

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, what if there is a discussion on Hezbollah in the politics forum and someone describes them as a terrorist group?

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" -- Gerald Seymour

Truth is subjective. Facts are not. But they are often confused.

easychair

Steve wrote: »

The general question of 'is posting a truth punishable' has been answered imo and that's what this forum is for. The specifics of this did belong in DRP as it's origins were a mod / user dispute.

If its origins were a mod/user dispute, then it's great to see something worhtwhile come out of a mod/user dispute.

easychair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, what if there is a discussion on Hezbollah in the politics forum and someone describes them as a terrorist group?

They are designated as terrorists generally by the West but as resistance fighters generally by the Islamic world and Hezbollah themselves.

What if someone states the fact that Hezbollah are terrorists and it upsets users who are Hezbollah members or those who view them as legitimate resistance fighters?

Orion wrote: »

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" -- Gerald Seymour

Truth is subjective. Facts are not. But they are often confused.

So what if it upsets some members? The fact is that some see Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, the fact is that Hezbollah have carried out terrorist attacks, and if someone gets upset but someone else considers hezbollah a terrorist organisation, I’d say too bad.

One can’t spend ones life tip toeing around trying to ensure that nothing one does or says might not upset someone else. If you are the sort of person who might get upset if someone says, for example, that Hezbollah are terrorists, then perhaps you should reconsider if a discussion group is the right place for you.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Similarly you can't be simultaneously be a mason and a Catholic without violating the Catholic Church's rulings. If you intentionally disregard the rulings whilst claiming to follow the rulings you are an obvious hypocrite.

By that definition pretty much every "catholic" in Ireland is a hypocrite.

Although I don't see your example as hypocrisy, tbh. If the catholics in question criticized Freemasonry whilst being members - that would make them hypocrites. That fact that a second organisation that they are a member of criticized that organisation doesn't have any bearing on the matter.

---

In relation to your point in general, I think whether you should be allowed post a "fact" depends on the context.

Example fact: Most people in US prisons are black or Hispanic.

What purpose does it serve? Does it imply a dubious generalisation? Is it relevant? Depending on what the context is such a "fact" above could be used in to push some race agenda.

Every case should be taken on it's own merit really.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Of course it matters what the individual thinks. If they don't think that what they are doing is wrong, they cannot, by definition, be a hypocrite

The term hypocrite is not subjective. Either you practice what you preach or you don't.

I don't think you are fully understanding me. To be a Catholic, for example, you agree to at least give a best-effort to adhere to it's doctrines.

Membership of a masonic lodge is a clear indicator that you have no interest in adhering to the Catholic doctrine.

twinQuins

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those Feedback threads where the OP basically tries to continue a discussion from a locked thread...

P. Breathnach

Dades wrote: »

...
In relation to your point in general, I think whether you should be allowed post a "fact" depends on the context.

Example fact: Most people in US prisons are black or Hispanic.

I can't see anything wrong with posting something that is a verifiable statement of fact of that type (public knowledge). Facts are neutral.

[I would object to private information being posted, even if it were factually true.]

What purpose does it serve? Does it imply a dubious generalisation? Is it relevant? Depending on what the context is such a "fact" above could be used in to push some race agenda.

That's a matter of how facts are treated.

The over- or under-representation of any demographic group in a prison population is an important question, and merits consideration.

P. Breathnach

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The term hypocrite is not subjective....

I disagree very strongly with that bold assertion.

Tom Dunne

I can't help but find it a little ironic that a person, the majority of whose posts are in the Conspiracy Theories forum, is questioning whether you can be punished for making a true statement.

Dades

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The over- or under-representation of any demographic group in a prison population is an important question, and merits consideration.

Of course it merits consideration - in a thread about that. But what if the thread in question has nothing to do with the demographics of prison populations? What if the thread is about, say, immigration policy?

Surely you can an envisage a scenario where a fact is posted in such an out of context fashion as to amount to trolling/flaming or just being a dick?

P. Breathnach

Dades wrote: »

Of course it merits consideration - in a thread about that. But what if the thread in question has nothing to do with the demographics of prison populations? What if the thread is about, say, immigration policy?

Surely you can an envisage a scenario where a fact is posted in such an out of context fashion as to amount to trolling/flaming or just being a dick?

By inserting a fact into a context you can be making an implication of some sort. So yes, I understand what you mean.

But it's not the fact that is the problem: it is the creation of an implication that the fact is linked to the point under discussion.

Dades

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it's not the fact that is the problem: it is the creation of an implication that the fact is linked to the point under discussion.

Indeed - at which point the truth of the fact isn't a defence for posting it, as per the question in the OP.

Dudess

The truth is an unalterable fact that cannot be refuted. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion, it is not something one feels in one's waters, it is not something one "believes" to be true.

Can't understand why this eludes so many...

Absolam

Truth to one is heresy to another. Facts are unalterable, but an opinion of a fact is entirely subjective. BB offered an opinion on facts and he believed his opinion to be true, but his opinion that Catholics who didn't conform to his opinion of Catholicism weren't Catholics, posted on a Christianity forum, wasn't likely to win a lot of positive feedback. He certainly appears to believe what he is saying is true, but it doesn't make the argument factual. Or true. Nonetheless, surely the point of a discussion forum is to discuss, regardless of the merits of the argument?

Sacksian

Dudess wrote: »

The truth is an unalterable fact that cannot be refuted. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion, it is not something one feels in one's waters, it is not something one "believes" to be true.

Can't understand why this eludes so many...

Interestingly (to me), lots of people with very different ideas of what the truth of a given situation is often agree that there is an objective, knowable truth. They just can't agree as to who is right and who is wrong but they have fairly much the same idea of truth.

However, there are obviously quite a few different theories of truth in philosophical literature and, if it hasn't been settled over a couple of thousand years of study, chances are this thread is not going to reach a satisfactory conclusion for the OP.

Absolam

Truth is beauty?

randylonghorn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll pose a hypothetical example. The government publishes figures for 2010 that the demographic most likely to cause death through dangerous driving is 18-25 year old males. I state this fact and it upsets 18-25 year old males.

Actually, that's not a fact.

Well, I suppose saying that the figures were published by the government (or more likely the RSA) would be a fact, but the results published are the subjective interpretation of the statistics, which in turn are contested on the basis of sloppy methodology and loaded questions ... and contested not just by 18-25 year olds.

In general, as an academic, I would always be wary of quoting survey results / stats as "facts" unless I have satisfied myself that the underlying methodology is above reproach.

As Mark Twain might mutter: "lies, damned lies and statistics"!

That's not to say the stats can't be reported, but let them sit for what they are: the results of one (possibly not perfect) study; don't insist on pushing them down someone's throat as the ultimate truth!

I would have thought someone who regularly posts on CT would be very skeptical of government stats, in fact ...

Dudess wrote: »

The truth is an unalterable fact that cannot be refuted. It is not subjective, it is not an opinion, it is not something one feels in one's waters, it is not something one "believes" to be true.

Can't understand why this eludes so many...

Because given that definition (and I agree with it) there is so little in life that is actually objectively "true" that people flounder around confused and desperately trying to find more "truth" than actually exists!



And BB, rather than getting into semantics about the definition of hypocrite, maybe consider whether there is an actual need to use a term which is loaded and which will almost always get peoples' backs up?

The primary rule of this site is "be civil". It's perfectly possible to make one's point without resorting to loaded terminology, the use of which many will see as flamebaiting.

TheZohanS

Absolam wrote: »

Truth is beauty?

Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty, ergo truth is moisture?

ShooterSF

Some (well most Irish) Catholics think they can pick and choose what parts of Christianity they believe in. Some choose to not pick the freemasonary bit.

While you and I might not agree with them their thinking is consistent and not one of a hypocrite. The minute they lecture someone else on not believing part of christianity's teaching as you can't pick and choose, then they become a hypocrite. IMO.

You and I both feel Religions are not a pick and mix, that does not make does that do a hypocrite. If you are going to accuse them on anything it's being wrong and then we get down to opinion.

OldGoat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've recently had an incident that has raised a broader question for me?

Can you be punished for making a true statement if it upsets someone else?

Yes.
In the Smoking forum posting of figures, statistics and known facts about the ills of smoking is a bannable offence as laid out in the charter.

/Thread

castie

Hyprocrite is certainly subjective.

A Soldier may say killing is wrong.
Yet he is not deemed a hyprocite while fighting in a war.


A second example.

I hold a belief that I am a great Rugby player.
If I have some bad games am I a hyprocite as I havent adhered to my belief?

According to the below definition I would be....

"a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

Yahew

I read the title and thought, no. The Truth is Paramount!

Then I thought about the Don't Be A Dick! super-rule, and I scenario I remember in the health forum came to mind ( Some details changed to protect the parties, and neither party was me).

Poster asks for specific advice for loosing fat of his/her posterior and thighs.
Poster 2 replies that that targeting diets are fads, and the best way to lose weight is to get off her fat ass, eat less, and exercise more.

None of which is untrue. The ass was clearly big enough ( or the poster would not be concerned by it), and this mechanism for losing weight would clearly work.

Nevertheless it is clear the way the post was put was a put-down, and thus invalidated the major rule. So the truth is not necessarily a defence.