It was not asked nor is your answer even coherent.
"Asked and answered" is a colloquialism from law that means "We've covered this already." When I say this it means I think you're trying to reset the debate.
You may not understand it or want to address it, but I assure you it is coherent. If I tell you the sky is green, I have made a false statement. But have I deceived you? No, because you are quite able to discern for yourself the actual color of the sky. This is where your "daily bread" standard fails. How food is obtained is in the category of facts reasonably within the ken of the average person. When someone says bread can be obtained from a magical source, the average person has knowledge that allows him to judge the credibility of that statement. He does not rely on the speaker to inform him generally or specifically about how to obtain food. He knows this himself.
This asymmetry of knowledge is a critical component of deception. Merely making a false statement doesn't deceive. The listener having to rely on it as a statement of credible fact is what makes something deceptive. If you had been in an interior room for many hours, say, and asked me what color the sky was, you'd have no way of verifying the facts yourself but you'd still doubt me because the sky is never green. The statement is patently non-credible on its face. If you were similarly shut in and asked, and I said the sky was black when it was really blue, then I'd be deceiving you. The statement is an allegation of fact, credible on its face, outside your present ability to verify, and knowingly false.
This is why I pointed out that ads funded chiefly by Mormons and Catholics should be considered deceptive. They're deceptive not because they're promoted by religious people. They're deceptive because they make allegations of fact, such as a certain percentage of homosexuals having infectious diseases, or being deemed unfit parents. These are allegations of fact -- that is, things that can be determined by observation or scientific inquiry to be either true or false and not a matter of faith or opinion. They are not within the ken of the normal person; people don't know for a fact, off the top of their heads, what epidemiology applies to homosexuals. Hence they are likely to rely in good faith upon the allegation. And finally the intent of the ad was to compel people to vote for legislation that would have disadvantaged homosexuals.
Intent is also a key distinction between deception and merely stating something that is false. But we haven't yet discussed that much.
I suggest you apply the rules of semantics and syntax of the English language as well as the principles of logic and reality and reason and rationality to the above claptrap.
I have. You dismiss it as sophistry. When I press you to address it, you respond with irrelevant mockery and invective.
I think once you do that you will see how DECEPTIVE the statements are.
Begging the question.
rather than addressing your blatant errors in this thread is simply silly.
