For being truthful, four conditions must be met:

1) One's speech should not hurt anyone.
2) The facts must be correct.
3) The speech should be pleasant or affectionate.
4) The speech must have a benevolent purpose.

If any of these factors is missing, then it is better to remain silent.

http://damayanti.store/blogs/news/mastering-the-power-of-true-speech

Socrates' speech is believed to meet all four.
Was the other guy's speech meeting the same?

Claiming that even more people ought to be in prison, that in the country with already nearly the highest rate of incarceration, fulfils neither of the above four:
http://moneywise.com/news/top-stories/charlie-kirk-says-putting-more-americans-in-jail-will-solve-the-housing-crisis-whats-behind-his-theory

---

Dear Dan,

I believe that John Daysh is a true person, not AI.
I do believe, however, that he has a team of humans behind to support him, because it is difficult to reason that one person can have so much knowledge in so many divergent areas.

Yuyutsu,

With sound information and media literacy skills, you don't need a team. We now have faster access to more information than we've ever had.

When you can sort through the information with speed and accuracy to pick out what's reliable, the sky's the limit - no team required.

Strangely, people are still encouraged by truth.
Sorrowfully, their basic understanding of the world around them is flawed.
Their understanding of truth is not purely factual.
It includes far too much instinctive behaviour.

As an example: no person has any natural 'right' to anything.
Instead, we have needs.
When those needs are enshrined in law, and enforced, they become 'rights'.
However, without enforcement, there are no 'rights'.
If your way of thinking includes the existence of natural 'rights', your thinking is flawed.
And reason based on that must also be flawed?
I notice, oh so often, that when people express opinions, that is the case.
I just wish we could all be taught truth from an early age.
It took a long time for me to work it out.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I agree that rights are not natural - freedom is.

The way I like to describe it is that, say our freedom is a $100 note, then states take away our freedom and return us a change of some copper coins as "rights".

Yet predators are also a natural phenomenon, where even whole stars are swallowed up by black holes, so we should consider ourselves lucky that we are still alive: others for example were taken by states to Siberia and never returned.

Dear Yuyutsu

I have well developed instincts that differentiate between fact and fiction: I also am an avid reader of the Bible, which is fine until I come to Revelation; that is a test for anybody’s faith; magic mushrooms come to mind.
I am also acquainted with a fencer who digs post holes naked in summer, so I’ve been around!

As for uncle Johnny Chatbot (Premium), I remain sceptical; very sceptical!
However, you I trust; but I won’t tell you why now.

Nuremberg Dan,

I do believe Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans, as for a trial before Pilate, very unlikely. Pilate would have been fluent in both Latin and Greek. Christ certainly wouldn't have understood Latin, as for his Greek probably not real good. And Pilot didn't deal directly with a low class Jew.

During his tenure as Governor of Judea (about 10 years 26AD to 36AD) Pontius Pilate systematically and without trial, had thousands of Jews executed, many by crucifixion. At one point the people of Jerusalem lodged a formal complaint about Pilots excesses with the Roman emperor, but it fell on deaf ears. Seems rather than being a weak vacillating man, Pilot was a ruthless bastard, just what the Romans needed to run Judea. BTW, the rise outside the walls of Jerusalem, Golgotha, could accommodate unto 100 crucifixions at a time. That indicates the Romans were carrying out crucifixions on an industrial scale, no time for trials, and certainly Christ would not have been taken down 3 hours after being put up, his body would have hung there until it rotted and the crows ate it, otherwise what's the point of public crucifixions if you're not sending a message to the general (illiterate) public, don't mess with us, or see what will happen to you. Yes, the Romans did hang messages on the crucified, in Christs case it would tell those that could read Greek, here is a bloke who didn't accept Roman authority.