Originally Posted by Yar-El
I must have missed this line. It is a very true observation. What we consider factually true derives from how we look at a event or statement.
I wasn't talking about moral relativism there or if a fact is a fact--I was saying that companies and politicians will intentionally state something in a specific way so that it's not quite a lie if you look at it in a very narrow, very specific context.
For example, I had a good friend who we were all pretty sure had AIDS because of how sick he kept getting along with the types of illnesses he got (shingles in someone under 35 is an immune impairment issue) and the type of lifestyle he lived. So, concerned friends that we were, we'd invariably ask him "have you gotten tested for HIV?" and he invariably would say "yes", with the implication that all was well, and we'd all be satisfied. What none of us asked was "did you go pick up the results, and what were they?" because then he would have been stuck telling us "No, I haven't gone to pick up the results." This is the kind of 'truth-shading' that I'm talking about--where a company will present information purposely in such a way that most people will come to a certain conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one.
Or take some of the contact lens studies sponsored by the companies. There are a couple contact lens companies who have produced the newer generation lenses that let a lot of oxygen through and are healthier for the eyes, but they are not terribly comfortable. Did those companies present any of the study data on comfort in their 'educational materials' they gave to doctors? No. They focused on oxygen transmission.