No, that would be defamation.

Alex Jones just found out lies versus inflamatory lies difference

That is why we have a judge system that is designed to, to the best of our capabilities, separate lies from facts.

AV: You are confused. Your first (of 3) sentence was ok, but then you went off the rails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My lamenting a less than ideal situation (that lies are a protected part of free speech) doesn't mean I endorse an alternate universe where some sort of 'TRUTH CZAR' makes declarations. I said nothing to lead you to this bizarre conclusion. I don't have a better proposal than the current system, although I'd tighten up a few loopholes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As far as your fear of, "whatever or whoever would decided what is true and what is false", I'll remind you that judges and juries currently do this, as well as the methods of science used to make this the best time to live in the western world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regarding your 2nd sentence: SPECIFICALLY, which portion of, "my reality" is untrue? Don't be shy, explain yourself or retract your comment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In your 3rd sentence, you express a fallacy, when you write that eliminating lies automatically leads to one single truth. There can still be multiple possible truths to explore. In fact, the possible truths are strengthened when obvious lies are eliminated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: According to what you've written, you must logically be a supporter of STOLEN VALOR, -- the 'con' where individuals LIE about serving in the military; LIE about the rank they achieved; LIE about their supposed heroic actions and LIE about the medals they were awarded for their fake heroics and raise money off of these lies! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THIS IS ACCEPTABLE. I don't like it -- but I don't have a solution to this problem without creating others. If I'm mistaken correct me, but is sounds like you approve of people like this who tell lies.

Den Ver: A lot to unpack here but want to start by negating your conclusion. I do not support anyone who consciously and deliberately spreads lies. I just don’t believe we should limit freedom of speech by making lying illegal................................................ Regarding my statement about your reality, my statement was “A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth”. Key words “single truth”. Which you have now agreed with given you state “There can still be multiple possible truths”. So, your request to “Don't be shy, explain yourself or retract your comment” has already been fulfilled by your own reply that there are multiple possible truths, and which I agree with. There is even an example of this in your post. You start with stating “You are confused”, which is what you believe to be ‘your truth’. Whereas ‘my truth’ would be that we just have a different opinion and that there is no confusion from my end.................................... I agree with you that judges and juries currently already decide what is considered to be the most likely truth. Where I feel we disagree is that I believe that the act of telling a lie should not be against the law. But, that when that lie has a negative effect on a person, that that person should indeed be able to sue you, bring you in front of the court and then let the judgement system deal with this as they now do. The moment you make the act of telling a lie illegal, public prosecutors would be able to prosecute anyone just for telling a lie, irrespective of whether that lie has any negative effects. A situation I feel is unfavorable because now you give the power of deciding what truths can be spread in a society to a single organ of governance. Whereas I feel it is exactly the exchange of different truths, opinions, perspectives which propels a society forward and has helped us advance our scientific and judicial system to the level it is today. The negative side effects of this is indeed that compulsive liars are free to say what they want. However, I am OK with paying this price and I think you are rather not OK with this, but I might be wrong.

Adriaan Verhelle: Your initial reply stated, … “A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth” ... (an intentional insult, saying that I am wrong). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is something a TROLL would say. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specifically, WHAT PART OF MY REALITY DOESN’T HAVE A SINGLE TRUTH? Where am I in error? (explain or retract your statement)

Sure, I'll give you another example. Here you state that one of my initial statement was "an intentional insult, saying that I am wrong". That is what you believe to be the truth about that statement. My truth about that statement is that 1) it is not an insult, 2) if you perceive this as an insult, then is was definitely not intentional and 3) I did not state that you where wrong by making this statement since in your response to it, you yourself state " There can still be multiple possible truths to explore." So I believe this to be an example of a piece of your (and my) reality, where there appear to be 2 'truths'. The one you believe to be true: I intentionally insulted you, and the one I believe to be true: I shared an opposing opinion that you seem to highly disagree with.

LETS START AT THE BEGINNING: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I SAID:. . . . . . . . . Unfortunately, lies are protected free speech in the US (with exceptions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If this wasn't the case, lawyers couldn't practice law as they currently do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YOU REPLIED: … A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXPLAINING * YOUR COMMENT = ?? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * LOGICALLY, you can’t use anything written AFTER your initial reply to defend what you were thinking BEFORE you hit, “send”. … (You’ve made this mistake twice and it makes it look like you are not too bright). Alternatively, you could just admit you made a mistake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You absolutely can use example from before and after making statements about the nature of reality/society. If anything, using the most resent example (that might date from after the initial statement) will be more relevant and recognizable for the other party. It is also what any kind of scientist does to further solidify his claim.

That's a lot of words to say, "I still can't explain myself". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In The Original 24 Words I Wrote, ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is the Surprisingly Big Portion of My Reality That Does Not Have A Single Truth.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To pry an answer out of you, do I need to remind you of this question on your future comments to get other people to weigh in with their thoughts and votes?

OK, my bad for not giving you a big picture answer. The surprising big portion would be anything from reality you process and react to using some form of internal or emotional metric. For example, when in conversations you perceive some comment/remark as (deliberately) insulting, harmful, mocking, hate speech... Or when someone in your vicinity does something or makes something that you perceive as too loud, bright, provocative, revealing, harmful ....

Should we see what other "Pandas" have to say about this answer to my question?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of what I was looking for, would be if somebody stated, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Vaccinations are bad for the individual and society" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and I DERISIVELY replied, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If I was asked to explain why I though they were wrong, I could provide many specific reasons. . I would not give them some Bullsxit Answer about Processing Reality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am sincerely impressed with the amount of effort you put into your replies, given that it would have been so much easier for you, if you'd just written that you should've sent only sentences 1 and 3 (of 3) and left the middle/2nd sentence out. You've got to be associated with politics to believe you can get away with your latest (non) answer. I'm glad you don't work in experimental science with your, "Our realities are just different" nonsense.

I'm sorry my examples are not what you where looking for. But in hindsight, was it not to be expected that they were going to come from the sociology/psychology field and not the hard sciences? After all the latter deal with objectively measurable parts of our world whereas the first specifically study how each of us perceives the world. And it is specifically that individual perception that can lead people to form different opinions and beliefs about what is a truth and what is a lie, specifically in a situations where two people interact with one another and form opinions about the other person. For your vaccine example I do believe there is a single consensus truth to be determined, as there is for most things that belong the hard sciences. Which is why my statement was "A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth." and not "Your reality does not have any single truths". Thank you for acknowledging my efforts, I appreciate that.

play nice pandas

Doing my best here despite the name calling.

ANALOGY -- If the topic was Eating and Food Quality, and the ORIGINAL POST stated: . . . . . . . “A unrestricted diet doesn’t mean someone can eat whatever they want without consequences”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MY COMMENT: • Unfortunately, eating unhealthy food is allowed almost anytime, anywhere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • If this wasn’t the case, fast food restaurants couldn’t sell the food they . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . currently do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YOUR REPLY: . . • Bad eating practices are allowed to protect society from whatever or whoever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . would decide what is good and what is bad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Thus installing a single healthy food based policy would rapidly spiral into a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tyranny / dictatorship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS: Based on the initial comment, do you see that you made wrong assumptions and jumped to conclusions making you sound like a rude crazy person? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN FURTHER REPLies, you conclude I advocate a ‘Eating & Food police force to prevent food crime -- unlike yourself – even though I state the opposite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not really, please elaborate what my wrong assumption would be in this food-example.

Adriaan Verhelle: What's wrong, would be you bizarrely writing ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... "A surprising big portion of your reality does not have a single truth" to a 24 word lament about eating unhealthy food. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Given the obesity problem in the US, Britain and Belgium, it is unfortunate that everybody has to pay the increased health costs of people who don't take better care of themselves. Agreeing with this statement doesn't equate to making bad eating habits a crime anymore than saying, "Unfortunately, compulsive liars exist" indicates advocating for "Lie Police". Starting a sentence with, "unfortunately" is just grumbling about things not being better. It's not a policy position. The thousand Pandas who read the initial comment understood this -- except for one (Adriaan).

But you did not say it is unfortunate that liars exist. You said that it is unfortunate that lies are protected by law. And my initial comment about the absence of a single truth was to point out that what is a lie and what is a truth is not clear in a lot of cases. And that as such, we chose to allow people the freedom to say what they want. The same thing holds true for a healthy diet. We have a reasonable good idea of what that looks like. But that idea is still evolving and seems to have a big personal component. So yes, I would also state that a big portion of the umbrella term "healthy diet" does not have a single truth and at the moment it would we best if we just allow people to eat what they want. But just as freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence, neither should the freedom to eat what you want. As such, I would not have issues with people having to pay for any care they need directly related to their obesity, but I would have issues with people not being allowed to eat what they want, when they want.

😊 PUZZLE SOLVED 😊 WRITING SOLUTION FOUND 😊 ?? MEETING OF THE MINDS ?? 😊 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN YOUR DEFENCE … I FOUND A WAY TO CORRECT YOUR 2ND SENTENCE (very 1st reply) TO SAY WHAT YOU MAY HAVE MEANT IT TO. [VALID POINT MADE & MY OBJECTION ELIMINATED] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The the word, . . . . . . . “YOUR” … … ‘Y’ ’O’ ’U’ ”R’ . . . changes the entire meaning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) Given: . “A surprising big portion of YOUR REALITY does not have a single truth.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . The word, ‘YOUR’, is included, and it is directed towards an SPECIFIC individual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If that person, “does not possess truth”, then logically, they are adhering to a lie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2) Given: . “A surprising big portion of - REALITY does not have a single truth.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because the word, ‘YOUR’, is absent, (or any 1st, 2nd, 3rd person reference) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is a statement about the human condition and the universe in GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXAMPLE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you tell a stranger who has been drinking in a bar/pub, “A surprising big portion of YOUR REALITY does not have a single truth.” You are asking for an argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you tell a stranger who has been drinking in a bar/pub, “A surprising big portion of REALITY does not have a single truth.” You’ll get a shrug or a nod since it’s a platitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. --> By removing the word ‘YOUR’ in your initial reply, the meaning of your message is changed ... and your 1st and 3rd sentences are tied together (The 2nd sentence leads to the 3rd). . . . . . . . Now you have a general statement that everyone except extremists can agree with. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now your statement reads: [Telling lies is] protected to protect society from whatever or whoever would decide what is true and what is false. A surprising big portion of --> reality does not have a single truth. Thus installing a single truth based policy would rapidly spiral into a tyranny/dictatorship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . You didn’t like me getting personal, but, as in the example above, you made it personal by saying, . . . “YOUR REALITY” and “a big portion of it does not have a single truth” = saying, “My Reality Is Based On Lies”. . . In the future, I'd avoid the words, “You” or “Your”, or I you’ll get the same reaction if it isn't complimentary. Keep it general. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 😊 PUZZLE SOLVED 😊 WRITING SOLUTION FOUND 😊 ?? MEETING OF THE MINDS ?? 😊

I appreciate your effort to find common ground and I agree with you that omitting “your” in my statement might have prevented your objection. But that was not the statement I was trying to make. In hindsight I should have phrased it as “a person’s reality” instead of “your” to make is sound less personal. I really did mean to refer to a person’s own personal experience of reality. For example, with a concept like microaggressions you can see how the same information can be perceived differently by individual receivers due to their previous experiences. One might say the messenger was an aggressor, the other might say he was just expressing his own opinion without any bad intent towards a specific person. Both receivers express a valid statement about what they perceived to be the truth. They are not mutually exclusive, and an independent observer does not always have a valid metrics to say that one of the two receivers is wrong.

Adriaan Verhelle: STOP LYING about what I’ve written and believe! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Anywhere did I indicate I believe the act of telling a lie should be against the law. . . . . . . . . . I clearly stated the OPPOSITE when I wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) “ I don't have a better proposal than the current system” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) “ [I don’t] …endorse some alternate universe where some sort of 'Truth Czar' makes declarations” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) “ I don't like it -- but I don't have a solution to this [lying] problem without creating others”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It’s IRONIC that if you hadn’t made a wrong Assumption when I used the word, “LAW” *, and if your reading comprehension was better, you would realize we were making the same point. Our views on this topic are very similar. When analyzing my beliefs, you ended with, “but I might be wrong”. Just to be clear, you are 100% wrong about what you say I believe (as summed up in your last 2 sentences). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * LAW: In my original post, an inference was made referring to LIE based court filings and lawyers obfuscating / lying on behalf of clients, that everyone knows about.

Den Ver: Where exactly did I lie about those things? All my statements referring to what your believes are clearly written as my interpretations and not as proven facts. Hence my phrasing "Where I feel we disagree..." and "I think you are". Wat is true that I had indeed assumed you where against all forms of lying, given that in your original post you state "Unfortunately, lies are protected free speech in the US" and in your first response to me "STOLEN VALOR, -- the 'con' where individuals LIE about serving in the military". To me both of these seems to refer to situations where someone just verbally spreads a lie since you did not specify them any further. Your later on added edit to your first post now makes it clear you also meant court filings. Which I do not consider speech, and thus not protected under the free speech laws to begin with. Forging documents has been illegal for a very long time now.

In your last sentence, you mention, "forging documents". This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Again, you are confused. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In my original reply, I was referring to lawyers filing charges based on lies and going to court against somebody in order to steal something that isn't theirs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donald Trump has done this over-and-over for decades and won more times than he has lost. President Trump's lawyers did this for him 62 times in 2021. They lied about non-existent voter fraud.

Lawyers filing charges based on lies is not protected under freedom of speech because it is not speech. They can file charges that contain quoted lies from their clients, but the moment they knowingly insert lies under their own name, they can and have been held accountable. The example you give is also nothing new. When 2 parties go to court, most likely, one of them is lying. And like you mentioned before, it is then the task of the court to determine who most likely is and pass a ruling. I believe that someone should have te right to speak their mind and say that they believe there was voter fraud (which a lot of US citizens did). The moment however you start putting all of this in writing and use it to sue somebody, you leave the realm of free speech and rightfully so expose yourself to possible penalties.

I get your “joke”. … As an example of DEFENDING LYING as protected free speech, you are misrepresenting/LYING to prove your point. Although we share the exact same opinion, you claim I say the opposite. (Good Job. You obfuscate like a low life maître*) … * lawyer / barrister

You are so being so obtuse, I’m just going to post your quote. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YOU WRITE: “… you also meant (referred to) court filings. Which I do not consider speech”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The other 50 people commenting here know that "Freedom of Speech" refers to all forms of expression. It doesn't have to come out of somebody's mouth. [There is nothing more important than speech written into law].

But court filings are the only form of free speech which will actually be scrutinized for the truth. If anything you should have the least amount of issue with this form.

Congratulations on CONTRADICTING YOURSELF! You are responding to your own laughable statement, ... First you say "court filings, which I do not consider to be speech" ... Then you say, "But court filings are the only form of free speech ..." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philosophically we agree. I've said this a half dozen times. My objection is when you write something stupid (like this), you don't explain, modify, or retract. That makes you a weasel.

Those are not contradictory as one refers to my own personal believe of what free speech should protect and the other to what free speech is currently protecting. I was reacting to the fact that, from what you posted, I think you have issues with the fact that court filings currently are protected as free speech. And I replied that I don't get that concern because of all types of free speech, this type is the one that actually is most scrutinized and the one for which you most likely will have to bear consequences. Next to that, I personally do not view court filings as free speech as I believe that at the moment of filing you exit the domain of public speech. Now the fact that the law currently does not follow my believe, does not make these two statements contradictory. It is simply an example of me showing that I understand and except that there are differences between my point of view and what we as a society have agreed upon. With respect to your objections, as long as this conversation is going I am actively trying to explain myself. I only modify my posts when I see an obvious typo as to not mislead anyone. I do not retract any because I still stand by them. If that makes you feel compelled to call me a weasel, then within the spirit of free speech, go for it. After all, so far you've already called me a "Trol", "Not too bright", "Rude crazy person" and "low life maître". I'm not really used to discussions that include so much name calling. But hey, free speech right?!

As a free speech advocate, I disagree with Germany outlawing EU flag desecration in 2020, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine. What is your opinion?

I disagree as well, if you bought the flag, you should be able to do with it what you want. It is your property and desecrating it does not pose any harm to another person.

😊 PUZZLE SOLVED 😊 WRITING SOLUTION FOUND 😊 ?? MEETING OF THE MINDS ?? 😊 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN YOUR DEFENCE … I FOUND A WAY TO CORRECT YOUR 2ND SENTENCE (very 1st reply) TO SAY WHAT YOU MAY HAVE MEANT IT TO. [VALID POINT MADE & MY OBJECTION ELIMINATED] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The the word, . . . . . . . “YOUR” … … ‘Y’ ’O’ ’U’ ”R’ . . . changes the entire meaning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1) Given: . “A surprising big portion of YOUR REALITY does not have a single truth.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . The word, ‘YOUR’, is included, and it is directed towards an SPECIFIC individual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If that person, “does not possess truth”, then logically, they are adhering to a lie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2) Given: . “A surprising big portion of - REALITY does not have a single truth.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because the word, ‘YOUR’, is absent, (or any 1st, 2nd, 3rd person reference) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is a statement about the human condition and the universe in GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXAMPLE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you tell a stranger who has been drinking in a bar/pub, “A surprising big portion of YOUR REALITY does not have a single truth.” You are asking for an argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you tell a stranger who has been drinking in a bar/pub, “A surprising big portion of REALITY does not have a single truth.” You’ll get a shrug or a nod since it’s a platitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. --> By removing the word ‘YOUR’ in your initial reply, the meaning of your message is changed ... and your 1st and 3rd sentences are tied together (The 2nd sentence leads to the 3rd). . . . . . . . Now you have a general statement that everyone except extremists can agree with. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now your statement reads: [Telling lies is] protected to protect society from whatever or whoever would decide what is true and what is false. A surprising big portion of --> reality does not have a single truth. Thus installing a single truth based policy would rapidly spiral into a tyranny/dictatorship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . You didn’t like me getting personal, but, as in the example above, you made it personal by saying, . . . “YOUR REALITY” and “a big portion of it does not have a single truth” = saying, “My Reality Is Based On Lies”. . . In the future, I'd avoid the words, “You” or “Your”, or I you’ll get the same reaction if it isn't complimentary. Keep it general. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 😊 PUZZLE SOLVED 😊 WRITING SOLUTION FOUND 😊 ?? MEETING OF THE MINDS ?? 😊

I appreciate your effort to find common ground and I agree with you that omitting “your” in my statement might have prevented your objection. But that was not the statement I was trying to make. In hindsight I should have phrased it as “a person’s reality” instead of “your” to make is sound less personal. I really did mean to refer to a person’s own personal experience of reality. For example, with a concept like microaggressions you can see how the same information can be perceived differently by individual receivers due to their previous experiences. One might say the messenger was an aggressor, the other might say he was just expressing his own opinion without any bad intent towards a specific person. Both receivers express a valid statement about what they perceived to be the truth. They are not mutually exclusive, and an independent observer does not always have a valid metrics to say that one of the two receivers is wrong.

LS: Yes. The "under God" part was promoted by the John Birch Society (1950's MAGA) and Senator McCarthy (1950's version of Trump). They were obsessed with influence by the "Godless" Communists/Socialists. They also had their own looney conspiracy theories (like today's Republican's). For instance, adding Fluoride to drinking water (commonly done now) was Communist plot to deaden American’s brains and subject them to mind control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IF this is inaccurate, REPLY instead of just downvoting and I will correct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OTHERWISE, you are telling the world you're too weak to examine facts and are acting cowardly