It’s interesting that everyone gets into a tizzy whenever someone looks at religion and just tells it like it is, but the same doesn’t happen with any other subject.
Larry Summers, Julian Assange, Stephen McIntyre, and Bruce Charlton might disagree, unless you redefine “religion” to mean all the things that people get into a tizzy about in preference to discussing the evidence. (As some would.)
Julian Assange doesn’t tell it like it is, though the point in general stands.
Do you mean that you disagree with what he says about the value of transparency in government, or that he disagrees with what he says?
In listing those four people I did not intend to imply that the things that these people have famously said are all true, only that all of them would see themselves as telling it like it is—that is, expressing what they judge to be true, in spite of pressures to the contrary. And they are doing so in various areas other than religion.
Nobody has a hot line to The Truth. Everyone who is not lying believes they are telling the truth, whether what they are saying is true or not.
Unsure of your point. Unless you are talking about his public statements (I will grant you that), Assange provides factual documents created by the organisation in question. These are records of corruption or abuse. This is about as ‘telling it as it is’ as you can get, unless you mean the semantic difference between “Assange tells it like it is” and “Assange leaks documents that record companies telling it like it is”.
Well, just look at the “collateral murder” case. The official government story there was actually closer to the truth than the WikiLeaks version—WikiLeaks provided more information, yes, but they did so in a skewed/biased way that actually acted to obscure the truth.
IIRC they released a video from an American helictoper, calling it “collateral murder”. The video showed a bunch of people, some with guns, milling about in the street. The gunners misidentify the journalists’ cameras as weapons. They open fire on the group, then later open fire on a van that attempts to pick up one of the badly wounded men.
The official government story was that American troops were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, called in reinforcements and attack helicopters, and in the ensuing fight 9 insurgents and 2 journalists were killed. “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” from Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl.
Were these the official government story and the WikiLeaks version you were familiar with? Because by any reasonable definition of ‘truth’, the government’s version is factually wrong and obscures the entire situation, whereas the WikiLeaks version is factually correct and obscures nothing, excepting its use of the word murder.
The fact that the journalists’ cameras were misidentified as weapons is a red herring, because they were still with a group of people armed with assault rifles and at least one rocket launcher, and engaging the group was justified. WikiLeaks focuses on the single (irrelevant) misidentification and also frames the engagement as “murder,” neglecting to point out the weapons that the others were carrying.
In my view, the government version is not factually wrong—nine insurgents and two journalists were killed, after all, and the other engagements mentioned were not shown in that video—and the WikiLeaks version is. If that means I have an unreasonable definition of ‘truth,’ so be it, but the case seems fairly clear to me.
Larry Summers, Julian Assange, Stephen McIntyre, and Bruce Charlton might disagree, unless you redefine “religion” to mean all the things that people get into a tizzy about in preference to discussing the evidence. (As some would.)
You can add Jocelyn Elders to your list, and matters relating to sex and young people generally.
Thanks for the Charlton reference—I’d never heard of him, but he seems somewhat sensible about depression.
Julian Assange doesn’t tell it like it is, though the point in general stands.
Do you mean that you disagree with what he says about the value of transparency in government, or that he disagrees with what he says?
In listing those four people I did not intend to imply that the things that these people have famously said are all true, only that all of them would see themselves as telling it like it is—that is, expressing what they judge to be true, in spite of pressures to the contrary. And they are doing so in various areas other than religion.
Nobody has a hot line to The Truth. Everyone who is not lying believes they are telling the truth, whether what they are saying is true or not.
Unsure of your point. Unless you are talking about his public statements (I will grant you that), Assange provides factual documents created by the organisation in question. These are records of corruption or abuse. This is about as ‘telling it as it is’ as you can get, unless you mean the semantic difference between “Assange tells it like it is” and “Assange leaks documents that record companies telling it like it is”.
Well, just look at the “collateral murder” case. The official government story there was actually closer to the truth than the WikiLeaks version—WikiLeaks provided more information, yes, but they did so in a skewed/biased way that actually acted to obscure the truth.
IIRC they released a video from an American helictoper, calling it “collateral murder”. The video showed a bunch of people, some with guns, milling about in the street. The gunners misidentify the journalists’ cameras as weapons. They open fire on the group, then later open fire on a van that attempts to pick up one of the badly wounded men.
The official government story was that American troops were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, called in reinforcements and attack helicopters, and in the ensuing fight 9 insurgents and 2 journalists were killed. “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” from Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl.
Were these the official government story and the WikiLeaks version you were familiar with? Because by any reasonable definition of ‘truth’, the government’s version is factually wrong and obscures the entire situation, whereas the WikiLeaks version is factually correct and obscures nothing, excepting its use of the word murder.
Yes.
The fact that the journalists’ cameras were misidentified as weapons is a red herring, because they were still with a group of people armed with assault rifles and at least one rocket launcher, and engaging the group was justified. WikiLeaks focuses on the single (irrelevant) misidentification and also frames the engagement as “murder,” neglecting to point out the weapons that the others were carrying.
In my view, the government version is not factually wrong—nine insurgents and two journalists were killed, after all, and the other engagements mentioned were not shown in that video—and the WikiLeaks version is. If that means I have an unreasonable definition of ‘truth,’ so be it, but the case seems fairly clear to me.