View Single Post
Old 05-23-2015, 08:16 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Thank you for your response, Bricker. I still maintain that "inaccurate" is an inappropriate term in this conversation, and here's my thinking:

A statement of fact has a truth value, whether that truth value has generally been established as apparent to the disinterested observer, or whether it has not. ISTM that there are three distinct categories that can be used to describe the truth value of any assertion: accurate, inaccurate, and of undetermined accuracy. One could arguably usefully substitute proven, disproven, and unproven as descriptors for these categories. In the context of an online debate (as opposed to, say, a jury trial), I do not agree that it is legitimate to conflate the second and third categories, any more than it is to conflate the first and third.
OK, that's a fair approach.

I was using the term in response to a claim of certainty. That is, what justified my claim of "inaccurate" was as a gratuitous rebuttal to the claim that we know what the Duggars think.

But your assessment divorces my comment from a reply to Honey and treats it as a first-instance claim. I absolutely agree that it cannot stand in that context.

Similarly, our not being in a courtroom (once again, ISTM) suggests that the bar for "baselessness" could be raised a bit higher than "suitable evidence upon which to base a claim," particularly in the absence of anyone vested with the authority to decide what is and what is not "suitable." I might not be comfortable with innuendo, but extrapolation from what we know of Gothardite teaching materials, and the degree to which the family has already demonstrated strict adherence to Gothardite principles should move the assessment of some statements from "baseless" to AT LEAST "circumstantial."
In what specific way does that differ from "innuendo?"