Skippy here. Part of the problem, see, is that when you only have the truth on your side and your opponent can lie with impunity, it's easier for them to make up and spew lies than it is for you to refute them with facts.
So it's one lie after another after another, with only minimal effort required on their part. All they have to do is make them up and hold a press conference or talk to a reporter.
But to refute those lies, you have to have references and facts and figures and numbers and quotes...and actual truth. And that takes up a lot of time. Time that the opponent uses to make up more lies, which will keep you busy and distract you more, and it just never ends.
It's an untenable situation. And the public never pays attention to the refutation; all they remember is the accusation.
I'm sure we've all seen those trial scenes on TV that go something like this:
I'm sure many of you can think of many situations in which this gets applied on a daily basis. I don't have to spell anything out.
It's making me sick.
So it's one lie after another after another, with only minimal effort required on their part. All they have to do is make them up and hold a press conference or talk to a reporter.
But to refute those lies, you have to have references and facts and figures and numbers and quotes...and actual truth. And that takes up a lot of time. Time that the opponent uses to make up more lies, which will keep you busy and distract you more, and it just never ends.
It's an untenable situation. And the public never pays attention to the refutation; all they remember is the accusation.
I'm sure we've all seen those trial scenes on TV that go something like this:
Evil Lawyer: Mrs. Smith, isn't it true that you once contributed money to al qaeda?But it's too late, now. By bringing it up, the Evil Lawyer has poisoned the jury against Mrs. Smith's testimony. The accusation is there, but she was not allowed to refute it. No matter how many times the judge says to disregard it, the words, once spoken, cannot be unspoken.
Slightly Less-Evil Lawyer: Objection! Irrelevant!
Judge: Sustained.
Evil Lawyer: I'll withdraw the question.
Judge: <to the court reporter> Strike the last question from the record. <to the jury> You will disregard the question.
I'm sure many of you can think of many situations in which this gets applied on a daily basis. I don't have to spell anything out.
It's making me sick.
no subject
Let us assume that in a dispute, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent person no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess “I did it.” But lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare that “I didn’t do it,” and accuse another of doing it, all the while the innocent person he has accused is saying “I didn’t do it,” and is actually telling the truth.
The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if the innocent person is honest and admits his mistakes.
no subject
no subject
I swear. It's a five page letter.
Now wouldn't that make you happy, Mr. Skippy? Almost like a giant slice of chocolate mousse cake, without the calories.
no subject
no subject
*throws her hands in the air and squees!*