Objective whatever

This is certainly a raging debate. Wendy implores me to drop it. Sorry Dollface.

Objective reality and objective truth are phrases I hear quite often. What do they really mean? I’ve given it a lot of thought and come up with my own little analogy I’ll call the Pyramid Analogy. Let’s just start with reality=truth so that we understand either one to fit the analogy and we’ll designate it X.

X is a great pyramid then.

You have seen pictures of this great pyramid and read about it in books but you have never been to see it. Everyone you know has also seen it in pictures. You even know of one professor who has made a study of X and read more books about it than you even knew existed. He is an expert on this pyramid but he’s never been to see it either.

You talk with your friends about it. You discuss various aspects of it. One of your friends thinks it is 700 feet high but you read somewhere that it is 800 feet high. Your friend stands corrected. You thought is looked like it was made out of marble but the professor tells you it is made from sandstone and coated to give it that hard, shiny surface.

Now you meet someone who has been to the pyramid. They certainly could tell you more about it than people who haven’t been there. That person tells you what it felt like to the touch and that you can sense the antiquity of it when you are standing there. That’s all well and good but you still don’t really KNOW anything about X. You need to experience it for yourself. You go and stand at the base of pyramid X. You see it for yourself. You feel it and smell it. You think to yourself, “What a colossal monument to engineering.” There is someone standing right next to you looking at the same thing. You turn and ask what they think. They reply, “What a colossal monument to vanity.” You have both looked at exactly the same thing and responded to it completely differently. Note, Observer, that neither opinion changes anything about the pyramid itself but ARE the individual experiences of seeing it. It doesn’t matter that someone else experiences a sense of overwhelming vanity because to YOU it represents a feat of engineering. It is both. It is neither. It is just a pyramid.

You can walk around it. You can measure it and confirm for yourself just how tall it actually is. You can do all of those things and still you have only your experience of it. You can share what you’ve done, what you’ve seen and what you know about it. You can point other people in the direction of the pyramid so they can see and feel for themselves but you can guarantee they will not experience the same thoughts and feelings you have, similar but not identical. You have your experience of reality and they have theirs.

In your daily life the fact that X pyramid is out there doesn’t matter. In your discussions of X pyramid, the fact that it is out there doesn’t matter. All you can discuss is what you’ve seen and read and experienced. X pyramid is out there and you haven’t brought it with you. We all know it is there. It doesn’t change. It stands for all time. However, no one can tell you everything about it. Some people will tell you BS about it like aliens built it; it has catacombs full of treasures, etc. You know they are only stories so you dismiss them. There may be halls inside of it. That seems a reasonable speculation.

Now you need to know more about it. What’s inside of it? You’re told that no one knows because no one has ever been inside of it. In order to find out you will have to read and decipher the writings of the builder because He hasn’t been around discussing it for 2000 years or so.

The truth about reality is that we all exist inside of it. The only way to have an objective perspective on it would be to exist outside, apart from it. So each of us interprets reality subjectively. That is our reality. The objective reality remains simply an abstract idea. We can say that it exists; we can know that it exists but in the end that doesn’t mean anything.

If my perception of an object is one thing (1) and the objective reality of it is another (2) that doesn’t matter. I am going to respond according to my perception of it because that is MY reality. In my reality it is 1. I have no other reality. I do not have, cannot have objective reality.

[Satan]

I tried to read all of that Oag, I really did. I bent my entire will toward understanding it. I was so concentrated in fact, that I forgot the chair I was sitting in; and having lost all perception of it, it disappeared, and I found myself sprawled upon the floor...laughing my ass off. You win. ;D


Seriously man, my brain is still bleeding from the last time we did this...

(BTW, Laz made some interesting comments somewhere in the Inferno about this today. I hope he drags them over here.)

[Observer]

I do not have, cannot have objective reality.

I know. Everyone knows. You have demonstrated over and over again that YOU cannot be objective and have little grasp of reality and truth.

[Satan]

<drags up lawn chair and cooler, prepares for fireworks display>

[jeny]

Are we having this discussion again? A pyramid is a pyramid, made of exactly what it's made of, regardless of anyone's perception of it.

Sky, do you have some lemonade in that cooler?

[CaptainKirk]

programs here! get your programs! programs!

[Thunder Bay]

Thanks for sharing your coma-inducing techniques, OAGgy. ::)

Looks like you've been taken under Brent's wing. ;D

[Satan]

You can point other people in the direction of the pyramid so they can see and feel for themselves but you can guarantee they will not experience the same thoughts and feelings you have, similar but not identical.

You can guarantee this?

[jeny]

Hey Sky <<SMACK>> Do you have any lemonade or not? Sheesh. What's a girl gotta do to get some damn lemonade?

[Larry_Oldtimer]

I recall a class I once took where the "beachball" problem was demonstrated. The situation was thus: The beachball had 6 equal sections, each of a given color. Each of the two people in the demo were on different sides of the beachball, and could see only 3 of the sections. The question was asked, "How is the beachball colored?" Well, the obvious happened. One said that it was red, white and green, the other said that it was orange, blue and yellow. It is a matter of perspective. Once again, the poem, [i]The Blind Men and the Elephant[/b] by by John Godfrey Saxe comes to mind:

http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html

[Descartes]

Are we having this discussion again? A pyramid is a pyramid, made of exactly what it's made of, regardless of anyone's perception of it.




Right. OAG isn't saying otherwise. He's saying that even thoght that is the case, if you aren't an expert in materials science analyzing it exactly, and haven't even been to see the pyramid . . . there is no way you can say with absolute certainty that it is made of marble. You may perceive it as marble, but that don't make it so . . . but since you will never be there to experience it for yourself and be able to test it to the nth degree . . . all that matters to you is your perception that it is marble and you will therefore believe it as marble and that's just fine.

[jeny]

Right. OAG isn't saying otherwise. He's saying that even thoght that is the case, if you aren't an expert in materials science analyzing it exactly, and haven't even been to see the pyramid . . . there is no way you can say with absolute certainty that it is made of marble. You may perceive it as marble, but that don't make it so . . . but since you will never be there to experience it for yourself and be able to test it to the nth degree . . . all that matters to you is your perception that it is marble and you will therefore believe it as marble and that's just fine.






I don't think anyone disagrees with this, BUT percieving it to be marble does not make it marble.

Frankly, he's changed his tune, way back when this discussion first started, he was claiming that there IS no reality. only perception. While it may be true that there is perception, there is most definately reality.

I feel like I've just given birth to Lao-tse.

In this world, there is nothing softer or thinner than water. But to compel the hard and unyielding, it has no equal. That the weak overcomes the strong, that the hard gives way to the gentle -- this everyone knows. Yet no one asks accordingly.

~Some stupid Chink~

[Persephone]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, BUT percieving it to be marble does not make it marble.

Frankly, he's changed his tune, way back when this discussion first started, he was claiming that there IS no reality. only perception. While it may be true that there is perception, there is most definately reality.


That's pretty much how it struck me. He's now trying to argue the very thing he was spouting off against before. He's explained exactly the thing everyone else said the first time around.

I'd wonder what the point is, but I perceive myself to be too tired to care.

I know. Everyone knows. You have demonstrated over and over again that YOU cannot be objective and have little grasp of reality and truth.



You cannot be objective either. That is the part theat seems to grind your beans for some odd reason. You refuse to admit that you have only a subjective view of reality regardless of whether or not an objective reality exists apart from all of us. You are right though. Your reality and truth are not worth grasping so I make no attempt at it and therefor have no grasp of it.

Are we having this discussion again? A pyramid is a pyramid, made of exactly what it's made of, regardless of anyone's perception of it.

Does this point somehow differ from anything I've said above?

Thanks for sharing your coma-inducing techniques, OAGgy. ::)

Looks like you've been taken under Brent's wing. ;D


You're quite welcome. Have you anything but ad hominem to add or is that the extent of your intellectual prowess? Who are you trying to impress BTW? Does being a suck-up to Observer pay well these days?

You can guarantee this?




Yep. I could even write it in stone if it would help.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, BUT percieving it to be marble does not make it marble.

Frankly, he's changed his tune, way back when this discussion first started, he was claiming that there IS no reality. only perception. While it may be true that there is perception, there is most definately reality.


I have not changed my tune one bit Jeny. I never once said that there is no reality. I said that there are millions and millions of them. Each individual living today has one. I could get into a deep debate with you about existentialism and whether or not you can say there is definitely reality. For the sake of the poor objectivists here though I won't go there because their little heads might explode. For the sake of this discussion I am willing to grant that an objective reality exists, unchanging, immutable, blah blah blah. I have illustrated and given it a representation in pyramid X. What more can I do for your highness?

[CaptainKirk]

Looks like you've been taken under Brent's wing. ;D

Tb are you talking about Brent of NM days...the dude who cut n pasted ad nauseum about matters conspiratorial, esp those involving the Fed and USG....?

as i recall, wasnt he a bartender from Cleveland IRL?

That's pretty much how it struck me. He's now trying to argue the very thing he was spouting off against before.

What I have done is illustrate the fact that what I said the first time around was misunderstood by some. I've said exactly the same thing and it now seems clear to you. Since it didn't before it must be that I had said something else right?

He's explained exactly the thing everyone else said the first time around.

That was also my point. People were arguing against things I hadn't said. They were saying that perceptions DON'T alter anything objectively as though I had said they did. I never said any such thing. In order for perceptions to alter things objectively there would have to be some magic involved and I have never professed a belief in magic. I never said that if a person believed the pyramid was made of marble that turned it into marble or any other similar nonsense. When people argued as though I had said that and called me an idiot I took umbrage at the abuse I recieved for THEIR misunderstanding.

I have now clarified my point in the hope that everyone might understand it more thoroughly. What I get for my effort is more abuse. You're just a swell bunch. Thanks for the love.

Looks like you've been taken under Brent's wing. ;D

Tb are you talking about Brent of NM days...the dude who cut n pasted ad nauseum about matters conspiratorial, esp those involving the Fed and USG....?

as i recall, wasnt he a bartender from Cleveland IRL?


Who's Brent? Was that some sort of terrible insult or something? Should my feelings be hurt that someone of TB's caliber has slighted me thusly? I have a dirty razor blade handy just in case someone like TB thinks ill of me and I need to slit my wrists.

[jeny]

OAG, just by the mere idea that so many "misunderstood" what you said might suggest that there was a flaw in your original explanation rather than with our skills at deciphering your original claims. Just a thought.

[Thunder Bay]

You're quite welcome. Have you anything but ad hominem to add or is that the extent of your intellectual prowess? Who are you trying to impress BTW? Does being a suck-up to Observer pay well these days?



De nada. Don't concern yourself with my prowess; I'm outta your league, junior. Coming across as an Ayn Rand wannabe isn't your strong suit. Observer certainly doesn't need any help. You could quit watching The Matrix over and over, though. It's not helping your fragile grasp of reality. ;D

[Thunder Bay]

;D

Tb are you talking about Brent of NM days...the dude who cut n pasted ad nauseum about matters conspiratorial, esp those involving the Fed and USG....?

as i recall, wasnt he a bartender from Cleveland IRL?



Yeah, that's him. You ask him hows the weather and get a two page reply. ::)

I don't know what he did IRL; I was afraid to ask. ;D

[Thunder Bay]

Who's Brent? Was that some sort of terrible insult or something? Should my feelings be hurt that someone of TB's caliber has slighted me thusly? I have a dirty razor blade handy just in case someone like TB thinks ill of me and I need to slit my wrists.



Actually, he was pretty sharp. You're following his principle of using 50K words when 100 would suffice. ;D

[Moonchild]

Not very controversial point of view OAG. Of course perception is subjective, and as nothing can be proven absolutely, a claim about objective reality must be an axiom.

I don’t see the problem really.

[Satan]

I have now clarified my point in the hope that everyone might understand it more thoroughly. What I get for my effort is more abuse. You're just a swell bunch. Thanks for the love.

Don't mention it. It's the least we can do, you being the patient and compassionate soul that you are. We do so appreciate your heartfelt attempts to enlighten us, though...

::)

OAG, just by the mere idea that so many "misunderstood" what you said might suggest that there was a flaw in your original explanation rather than with our skills at deciphering your original claims. Just a thought.


3 or 4 people doesn't constitute much of a quorum. Just another thought. I've admitted that my original explanation wasn't simple enough so I simplified it for y'all. Anything else I can do for your highness?

De nada. Don't concern yourself with my prowess; I'm outta your league, junior.

Junior league does seem about right for you. I'm not sure I'd have given you credit for even achieving junior leage but I can be magnanimous.

Coming across as an Ayn Rand wannabe isn't your strong suit.

Hahahaha. I rest my case lightweight. I am arguing against Ayn Rand's BS about objectivism. I am the furthest thing from a wannabe of that hosebag that you can get. The fact that this eluded you tells me how much of a contender you are.

Observer certainly doesn't need any help.

He certainly doesn't..not your's most especially. He's far more clever than you are.

You could quit watching The Matrix over and over, though. It's not helping your fragile grasp of reality. ;D


OOO that would have been sooo good and sooo funny except it's already been done to death by others. Keep trying though. I'm sure one of these days you'll post something moderately clever and original.

[Thunder Bay]

Junior league does seem about right for you. I'm not sure I'd have given you credit for even achieving junior leage but I can be magnanimous. Hahahaha. I rest my case lightweight. I am arguing against Ayn Rand's BS about objectivism. I am the furthest thing from a wannabe of that hosebag that you can get. The fact that this eluded you tells me how much of a contender you are.He certainly doesn't..not your's most especially. He's far more clever than you are.OOO that would have been sooo good and sooo funny except it's already been done to death by others. Keep trying though. I'm sure one of these days you'll post something moderately clever and original.





OAGgy, you're so thick...no wonder Observer gets frustrated. My point was ALL philosophical theories are BS. ::)

Well excuse me for not reading about all the other people that have punked you out. I'll try to think of something original that WON'T go over your head. ;D

Meanwhile, by all means, go feel your pyramid. :P

[wendy]

I am arguing against Ayn Rand's BS about objectivism.


And doing poorly, I might add.

[jeny]

3 or 4 people doesn't constitute much of a quorum. Just another thought. I've admitted that my original explanation wasn't simple enough so I simplified it for y'all. Anything else I can do for your highness?


Yeah, you can shove your condescending attitude upo your ass. Guess what, your shit stinks too. Your original explanation didn't make any sense, just admit it.

My point was ALL philosophical theories are BS. ::)

You're hilarious. I get it now. You are simply portraying a complete roob for the humorous effect. Nicely done.

And doing poorly, I might add.


Like you would know the difference.

Yeah, you can shove your condescending attitude upo your ass. Guess what, your shit stinks too. Your original explanation didn't make any sense, just admit it.


Awww you are just the cutest thing when you're indignant. ;)

[jeny]

Awww you are just the cutest thing when you're indignant. ;)


I have no idea what happened to you, you used to be a fairly nice guy. Are you going through menopause or something?

I have no idea what happened to you, you used to be a fairly nice guy. Are you going through menopause or something?


Nothing happened to ME Jeny. I've never taken any shit from anyone and I ain't about to take it from you just because you're adorable. I'm still a nice guy. Now back off bitch. ;D

[jeny]

Nothing happened to ME Jeny. I've never taken any shit from anyone and I ain't about to take it from you just because you're adorable. I'm still a nice guy. Now back off bitch. ;D



You know what, forget it, you can argue with yourself for all I care, your attitude has definately changed and calling me "adorable" isn't going make me forget all the other shitty stuff you've said.

[Thunder Bay]

You're hilarious. I get it now. You are simply portraying a complete roob for the humorous effect. Nicely done.





Oh yeah, I forgot the one reason we hang on to philosophy; so someone can get paid to teach it in college. What would all those phil. majors do without acadamia; get a McJob? ::)

You thought I'd correct your roob, dintcha, playa? Hahaha... ;D

[Thunder Bay]

I have no idea what happened to you, you used to be a fairly nice guy. Are you going through menopause or something?



He's got a mixed bag of wannabes. This phase is his wannabe Bad. ;D

You know what, forget it, you can argue with yourself for all I care, your attitude has definately changed and calling me "adorable" isn't going make me forget all the other shitty stuff you've said.


I still don't care and I still love you. You'll get over it and then bring it up years from now when we have our next tiff. ;D You ARE adorable. I'm not just saying that. :-*

You thought I'd correct your roob, dintcha, playa? Hahaha... ;D


Nope. I intentionally spelled it fonetic'ly for ya like dey do in them thar trailor parks y'all lives in where you don't need no ph'losophizin' an' shit like dat. I'm shorely supprized ya catched it.

[Thunder Bay]

Nope. I intentionally spelled it fonetic'ly for ya like dey do in them thar trailor parks y'all lives in where you don't need no ph'losophizin' an' shit like dat. I'm shorely supprized ya catched it.



Luckily, I don't share your spell-check phobia that you're in denial about; however, I'm glad you admitted your NEED for philosophy. That's the first step. You could give the appearance of intelligence discussing many other PRACTICAL subjects; try one. ;D

Luckily, I don't share your spell-check phobia that you're in denial about; however, I'm glad you admitted your NEED for philosophy. That's the first step. You could give the appearance of intelligence discussing many other PRACTICAL subjects; try one. ;D


Yes I have a need for philosophy like I have a need for biological science, astronomy and any other frivolous inquiry with no practical application in my life. I enjoy it. I enjoy the, pardon the phrase, slant of Eastern philosophy. I enjoy the simplicity of Fromm and the complexity of Kierkegaard. I enjoy the gentleness of Jesus and Socrates and the harshness of Kant. I like a good discussion and a good debate. Lately I haven't found either from anyone but Tiger.

I don't like anal pissants who ridicule anything beyond their talents as something unnecessary or foolish or whatever. So you truly ARE a rube. I love it when I'm right.

[Thunder Bay]

Yes I have a need for philosophy like I have a need for biological science, astronomy and any other frivolous inquiry with no practical application in my life. I enjoy it. I enjoy the, pardon the phrase, slant of Eastern philosophy. I enjoy the simplicity of Fromm and the complexity of Kierkegaard. I enjoy the gentleness of Jesus and Socrates and the harshness of Kant. I like a good discussion and a good debate. Lately I haven't found either from anyone but Tiger.

I don't like anal pissants who ridicule anything beyond their talents as something unnecessary or foolish or whatever. So you truly ARE a rube. I love it when I'm right.



Nope, nothin' practical in sight. Well, as long as you enjoy it; I thought you just liked to run off at the mouth.

Try not to alienate Tiger; pretty soon you won't have anybody to debate.

BTW, blathering is not a talent. Why would I be concerned with what a verbal target thinks? ::)

Made ya look it up, didn't I? :P

You should love it; it rarely happens. At least not this year yet. ;D

Nope, nothin' practical in sight. Well, as long as you enjoy it; I thought you just liked to run off at the mouth.

Every boy needs a hobby.

Try not to alienate Tiger; pretty soon you won't have anybody to debate.

Gosh that would be tragic. I might have to spend more time talking to intelligent people in real life.

BTW, blathering is not a talent.

Well keep trying I'm sure you'll find something else you do alot of that actually IS a talent. I think Tileman considers jerkin' your gherkin' a talent of sorts. I'm guessing you are good at that if nothing else.

Why would I be concerned with what a verbal target thinks? ::)

Verbal target? Target for the verbal? I'm sorry but you'll have to speak up. I can't hear you over the clicking of your keyboard. There is nothing verbal about typing on a forum dumbass.

Made ya look it up, didn't I? :P

You should love it; it rarely happens. At least not this year yet. ;D


Resorting to nonsense now? Have you run out of coherent things to say so soon?

[Thunder Bay]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah....oh wait; gotta give ya credit for bein' right about insurance companies. That takes care of this year, eh? ;D

Blah blah blah blah blah blah

So you're done? Thanks for the dance. Take some lessons from the junior leaguers and come back any time.

Here's some tips:

1) Don't reference the weak crap of other, wel-trounced lightweights. That makes you a boot licking lackey and not even on a par with them.

2) Keep your stuff original and try to be coherent.

3) Try your best to be WAAAYYY more clever than "blah blah blah." Giancarlo and Yukon can do better than that and I have faith in you that you can too.

4) Whether you are conceding a gunfight or have just grown tired of it, try to go out with a bang instead of a fizzle. Your previous post ended with incoherent nonsense but that is at least interesting and not excruciatingly boring like blah blah blah.

....oh wait; gotta give ya credit for bein' right about insurance companies. That takes care of this year, eh? ;D


Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you are still around after new year's day 2004 I'll endeavor to post something else that meets with YOUR high standards for posting excellence. I hope you have the patience to wait that long. I'll think of little else until that glorious day. :-*

[Giancarlo]

Hey, hey, hey, don't bring me into this. ;)

<< You Have Blocked This Message >> is all I see so I hope you haven't bothered to post anything clever for my benefit fudgepacker.

[Giancarlo]

<< You Have Blocked This Message >> is all I see so I hope you haven't bothered to post anything clever for my benefit fudgepacker.


Don't worry I didn't. Fudgepacker? hahahahaha.... what have we been smoking today?

And somebody should quote me on that so you can see what I said. ;)

[Thunder Bay]

So you're done? Thanks for the dance. Take some lessons from the junior leaguers and come back any time.

Here's some tips:

1) Don't reference the weak crap of other, wel-trounced lightweights. That makes you a boot licking lackey and not even on a par with them.

2) Keep your stuff original and try to be coherent.

3) Try your best to be WAAAYYY more clever than "blah blah blah." Giancarlo and Yukon can do better than that and I have faith in you that you can too.

4) Whether you are conceding a gunfight or have just grown tired of it, try to go out with a bang instead of a fizzle. Your previous post ended with incoherent nonsense but that is at least interesting and not excruciatingly boring like blah blah blah.Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you are still around after new year's day 2004 I'll endeavor to post something else that meets with YOUR high standards for posting excellence. I hope you have the patience to wait that long. I'll think of little else until that glorious day. :-*



Done? Nope, not til they're throwin' dirt on my box. I merely condensed the literal translation of your posts so far. ;D

<Flush> There went your tips, OAGgy. My apologies to the shit that can't escape your drivel down there. ::)

It's not my fault things keep evading your limited grasp; I'll be here well into the future. Standards don't concern me; you being right more than just in your own mind would be new territory, though. ;D

I noticed you've blocked Gianne; you're scared of the tooth fairy? That answers a lot of questions, eh? :P

I noticed you've blocked Gianne; you're scared of the tooth fairy? That answers a lot of questions, eh? :P


The little wanker was filling up my message box with threats, crying, smeg and whatever else he could throw at me. It bacame tedious deleting all of that crap so I put an end to it. Aside from watching with amusement as he dances with others there is nothing worthwhile forthcoming from BGB. I'm sure his little hissy fit is over and my inbox is safe from further fagspam but I haven't bothered to figure out how to unblock him. I guess I'm unmotivated or something. :cwm1:

[Thunder Bay]

The little wanker was filling up my message box with threats, crying, smeg and whatever else he could throw at me. It bacame tedious deleting all of that crap so I put an end to it. Aside from watching with amusement as he dances with others there is nothing worthwhile forthcoming from BGB. I'm sure his little hissy fit is over and my inbox is safe from further fagspam but I haven't bothered to figure out how to unblock him. I guess I'm unmotivated or something. :cwm1:



Understandable; yeah, spams a bitch. Scented spam, fer shure. ;D

I prefer to keep all lines of communication open, however. To quote Joe Davola of Seinfeld fame, when asked why he left his door open all the time, he said, "I like to encourage intruders." ;D

Understandable; yeah, spams a bitch. Scented spam, fer shure. ;D

I prefer to keep all lines of communication open, however. To quote Joe Davola of Seinfeld fame, when asked why he left his door open all the time, he said, "I like to encourage intruders." ;D


Eh <shrug>.

I'm the first person to say "rave on, I can ignore you". I'm the first one to oppose censorship. OTOH if the person I've censored has absolutely no good reason for their intrusion who cares? I need some incentive to encourage intrusion and GC isn't even mildly entertaining. He's the first and only person I've blocked just because of that. No matter how rude or abusive someone gets if they provide entertainment value I like them. Hence, I like you. :cwm1:

[Thunder Bay]

Eh <shrug>.

I'm the first person to say "rave on, I can ignore you". I'm the first one to oppose censorship. OTOH if the person I've censored has absolutely no good reason for their intrusion who cares? I need some incentive to encourage intrusion and GC isn't even mildly entertaining. He's the first and only person I've blocked just because of that. No matter how rude or abusive someone gets if they provide entertainment value I like them. Hence, I like you. :cwm1:



Different strokes for different folks, eh? I'd rather prod someone with a stick than ignore them; more entertainment bang for my buck, so to speak. I mean, even a bowl full of diahhrea has some solid chunks, dontcha think? ;D

Back atcha, playa. Good attitude. 8)

Different strokes for different folks, eh? I'd rather prod someone with a stick than ignore them; more entertainment bang for my buck, so to speak. I mean, even a bowl full of diahhrea has some solid chunks, dontcha think? ;D

Back atcha, playa. Good attitude. 8)


That's the best analogy you could come up with? I mean eeeewwwwww. :cwm8:

[Satan]

That was pretty gross, wasn't it?

Here, have a baby wipe.

FAAAAAAA Q

[Thunder Bay]

FAAAAAAA Q



Last three posts....LMAO! ;D

Regarding the analogy; I was halfway through it and heard a commercial on TV for the GMC Yukon suv. Subliminal hit, I reckon. But yeah, memorable. ;D

[lgllady]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, BUT percieving it to be marble does not make it marble.

Frankly, he's changed his tune, way back when this discussion first started, he was claiming that there IS no reality. only perception. While it may be true that there is perception, there is most definately reality.


For years when I was quite young and didn't know any better I believed just that. There is no reality, only perception. Until some wise person pointed out that if I were shot, I might believe with all my heart and perception that the bullet was a soap bubble. I might see a soap bubble, even smell it. Despite my perception and belief, I would still be dead. I then changed my mind realizing how truly foolish this was.

Perception can be altered, reality can never be altered.

For years when I was quite young and didn't know any better I believed just that. There is no reality, only perception. Until some wise person pointed out that if I were shot, I might believe with all my heart and perception that the bullet was a soap bubble. I might see a soap bubble, even smell it. Despite my perception and belief, I would still be dead. I then changed my mind realizing how truly foolish this was.

Perception can be altered, reality can never be altered.


The gunshot analogy is fine and dandy but the fact is that you could remain in denial right up to the end and never know why you died. It doesn't change the reality from a third person perspective but for you the reality is you were never shot and died for no apparent reason. When you refer to reality from the third person perspective you are still placing yourself in a subjective observer POV. All you are saying is that your clear-headed, undeluded view of reality is that there was a bullet involved. To the deluded person that bullet isn't a part of their reality regardless of the effects it has.

Once again, no one is arguing that there is no objective reality. The argument is that none of us have any way to say what it is because we ALL experience reality subjectively.

[Lazarus]

I tried to read all of that Oag, I really did. I bent my entire will toward understanding it. I was so concentrated in fact, that I forgot the chair I was sitting in; and having lost all perception of it, it disappeared, and I found myself sprawled upon the floor...laughing my ass off. You win. ;D


Seriously man, my brain is still bleeding from the last time we did this...

(BTW, Laz made some interesting comments somewhere in the Inferno about this today. I hope he drags them over here.)


I am sorry that I do not recall.

However, there exists an objective reality (truth) about which everyone holds a subjective opinion. Jesus said of Himself, "I am...the truth..." Those of us who believe Him to be the Son of God--we hold that subjective opinion--believe Him to be God, the truth, the objective reality. We take it on faith that He is there--always true, never changing in response to our subjective opinions about Him. Yet, we will bend our opinions when confronted with more or better information about Him who is the truth.

I don't agree that the objective truth does not matter. I don't believe that the objective truth can be known any more than we are capable of knowing the mind of God, yet to the extent that we know the truth--we do know and understand the mind of God. But, that is just another wasy of saying that we do not know very much. The more I learn, the more I realize just how much more there is left remaining yet to be known. The point here is to keep progressing to reveal the truth.

Those who believe in God but will not conform their views to the truth do not really know God. Those who do not believe in God--those who hold a subjective opinion that there is no God--are effectively asserting that there is no objective truth to which they would conform their views (from the point of view of those who believe in God). However, if they would alter their subjective opinions based upon a manifestation of the truth, then these are no less governed by the truth than the believer in God who is similarly governed by the truth.

My point is that reasonable people of faith and of science who will conform their subjective opinions to the truth when it is presented--if there is any disagreement on this issue--are simply not in agreement over the terminology--truth, reality, God--particularly in the personification of truth and reality as in the Person of God, Jesus Christ. Those of unreasonable minds or of bad faith will argue simply to argue.

Those who assert that there is no God but also assert that there is an objective reality to which they would conform their subjective opinions if the truth is presented--are contradicting themselves. Indeed, such are on (or will be on) bended knee. And those who will not conform to the truth? Self-deluded.

Whoosh! That would be the sound of all of that going right over the pedantic objectivists heads.

[Thunder Bay]

Whoosh! That would be the sound of all of that going right over the pedantic objectivists heads.



You're giving an inflated opinion too much jet power, bud. ;D

[truelies]

You're giving an inflated opinion too much jet power, bud. ;D


How so??????????????

[Thunder Bay]

How so??????????????



Um....it crashed and burned at my feet? ;D

[Lazarus]

Um....it crashed and burned at my feet? ;D


Subjective opinion. ;D

[Thunder Bay]

Subjective opinion. ;D



And here I thought it was rather objective. ;D

[Lazarus]

And here I thought...


Concedes the point. :)


...it was rather objective. ;D


Thus, demonstrating that everyone--including TB--holds a subjective opinion about the objective truth. Thanks for the moral support no matter how unintended. ;D

[Thunder Bay]

Concedes the point. :)Thus, demonstrating that everyone--including TB--holds a subjective opinion about the objective truth. Thanks for the moral support no matter how unintended. ;D



No sweat, Laz. I'm in favor of everything of an opinionative nature; even fairytales. ;D

Is opinionative a word? ;D

Why is it that objectivists inevitably resort to referrencing fiction/fantasy in their arguments favoring objectivism?

[Thunder Bay]

Is opinionative a word? ;D

Why is it that objectivists inevitably resort to referrencing fiction/fantasy in their arguments favoring objectivism?



Why do labelers exist? If anything, I'm a privatarian. ;D

Why do labelers exist? If anything, I'm a privatarian. ;D


Humans are pattern seekers by nature. What is a privatarian?

[Thunder Bay]

Humans are pattern seekers by nature. What is a privatarian?



All human nature is not good; privatarians practice privacy. ;D

All human nature is not good

Good, bad, those are just labels we arbitrarily assign to things. Human nature isn't either one. It just is what it is. We just have to deal with it, temper it, suppress it or run with it as our individual values dictate. I don't think you could say that pattern seeking is somehow a bad thing. However, if someone uses it to find a pattern of vile characteristics in one race and becomes a violent bigot because of it THAT is a bad thing. It is also an individual thing.

privatarians practice privacy. ;D

As in keeping things to yourself? You aren't a very good one then are you? ;D

[Thunder Bay]

Nope. Success is relative, however. ;D

So, are you getting to a point, or just typing again? ;D

I got to the point. I'm sorry it went over your head.

[jeny]

Good, bad, those are just labels we arbitrarily assign to things.

With good reason too. You think good and bad are relative too? Like pedophiles are good or bad depending on your perspective?

[Thunder Bay]

I got to the point. I'm sorry it went over your head.



What...that you obsess over patterns? That you're a labelholic? Your point is dull; sharpen it. ::)

With good reason too. You think good and bad are relative too? Like pedophiles are good or bad depending on your perspective?


Yes. A pedophile would label pedophilia a good thing. It is an arbitrary assignment based on HIS perspective. You and I would label it a bad thing based on our perspective. Whether it is a good or bad thing in any sort of real way can only be determined by a perspective outside of that reality.

What...that you obsess over patterns? That you're a labelholic? Your point is dull; sharpen it. ::)


So now you are going to set yourself up as somehow free of the natural inclination to label and catagorize? My but your delusions are grandiose. ;D

[Thunder Bay]

So now you are going to set yourself up as somehow free of the natural inclination to label and catagorize? My but your delusions are grandiose. ;D



Why, thank you. Yours, too. ;D

[jeny]

Yes. A pedophile would label pedophilia a good thing. It is an arbitrary assignment based on HIS perspective. You and I would label it a bad thing based on our perspective. Whether it is a good or bad thing in any sort of real way can only be determined by a perspective outside of that reality.



Well that is very interesting OAG, I wonder what you would do if a pedophile were to assault YOUR daughter (who you, by your own admission let "dress sexy") Would you be swayed by his protestations that it's a "good" thing, under his perception, of course.

Well that is very interesting OAG, I wonder what you would do if a pedophile were to assault YOUR daughter (who you, by your own admission let "dress sexy") Would you be swayed by his protestations that it's a "good" thing, under his perception, of course.


Now tell me honestly Jen. Why would you even suggest to a father who loves his daughter more than life itself ANYTHING remotely suggestive of his daughter being attacked and harmed by someone? Did you hope to get an emotional response from me? Did you hope to push a button? Did you feel that somehow this unconscionable behavior would escalate your POV to some higher ground from which I could no longer assail it? The final nail in the coffin of my argument so to speak?

I'd like you to go back and review our conversation to this point and tell me exactly where my posts grieved you to the point where you would decide it was a good idea to suggest something so perverse and contemptible to me. I believe all I said was that a pedophile would find pedophilia a good thing and you and I would find it a bad thing. For this you regaile me with the suggestion that I consider a pedophile molesting my daughter.

While I normally love you very much and would never wish ill on you, tonight I will refrain from thinking kindly upon you.

[arod]

With good reason too. You think good and bad are relative too? Like pedophiles are good or bad depending on your perspective?

Why the hell do you always bring some off the wall topic like pedophilia into these discussions? What idiot has been teaching you such sloppy debating techniques? :)

[arod]

Now tell me honestly Jen. Why would you even suggest to a father who loves his daughter more than life itself ANYTHING remotely suggestive of his daughter being attacked and harmed by someone? Did you hope to get an emotional response from me? Did you hope to push a button? Did you feel that somehow this unconscionable behavior would escalate your POV to some higher ground from which I could no longer assail it? The final nail in the coffin of my argument so to speak?

Interesting response, considering Canter took simlar offense when I proposed a similar hypothetical to him. Jeny is merely pointing out the logical consequence of your argument, and demonstrating that it all falls apart the moment it is tested by reality.

[jeny]

Give me a break OAG. Your arguement that there IS no good or bad is moral relativity, and I was merely pointing out ot you that it is a silly concept. Moral relativity falls apart when you face the consequences of such nonsense in your own personal life. I certainly don't wish anything of the sort to hapen to your and any other child because it is BAD, no matter how you spin it.

[jeny]

Why the hell do you always bring some off the wall topic like pedophilia into these discussions? What idiot has been teaching you such sloppy debating techniques? :)


I don;t know, some twerp. ;D

[lgllady]

Yes. A pedophile would label pedophilia a good thing. It is an arbitrary assignment based on HIS perspective. You and I would label it a bad thing based on our perspective. Whether it is a good or bad thing in any sort of real way can only be determined by a perspective outside of that reality.


I agree. A pedophile would find you a bad person for not being a pedophile. The difficulty lies in allowing or encouraging the pedophile to tell YOU that since you are not a pedophile, you are doing a bad thing. The only good thing is increasing the number of pedophiles.

Give me a break OAG. Your arguement that there IS no good or bad is moral relativity, and I was merely pointing out ot you that it is a silly concept. Moral relativity falls apart when you face the consequences of such nonsense in your own personal life. I certainly don't wish anything of the sort to hapen to your and any other child because it is BAD, no matter how you spin it.


Bullshit Jeny. What YOU did was bad. You suggested I envision my daughter being molested by a pedophile. It served your purposes to do so and you feel completely justified in doing it. Pedophiles feel the same way. See, morality IS relative. I believe what you did was wrong and you don't. You are even unapologetic about it now. You also said that I admitted my daughter dresses sexy. What I said was that other people have said so. My point was that I cannot and do not see her as sexy no matter what she wears because she is a very little girl to me. There is nothing sexy about little girls IN MY BOOK. YOU sided with the people whom I stated have a problem because THEY see her as dressing sexy.

You are one of those people who believe that there is some standard moral code carved in stone somewhere and we all know what it is. You believe that what YOU think to be worng and evil actually IS wrong and evil. You believe that people who do things that YOU think are wrong KNOW that they are doing something wrong. All I did was point out that some people DO NOT think that what they are doing is wrong IN SPITE of what YOU think.

I agree. A pedophile would find you a bad person for not being a pedophile. The difficulty lies in allowing or encouraging the pedophile to tell YOU that since you are not a pedophile, you are doing a bad thing. The only good thing is increasing the number of pedophiles.


Huh? What's good about increasing the number of pedophiles?

I really don't care what a pedophile would think of me any more than they care what I think of them. A pedophile could no more justify his proclivities to me than Jeny can justify her vile behavior. I have MY idea of what is right and wrong.

[jeny]

How is my bahavior vile? I am claiming that it is BAD no matter HOW you spin it, you're claiming that pedophilia is only BAD to some people. I think you;re the one with a screwed up view of morlaity. I already said I don;t wish it to happen to your or any other child.

You cannot accept that moral relativity only works in the abstract, that's not my fault.

Lastly, I never said you should "envision" it, i asked you what you would DO, would you be swayed by his protestations that it would be a good thing. According to you, it COULD be a good thing.

[arod]

Bullshit Jeny. What YOU did was bad. You suggested I envision my daughter being molested by a pedophile. It served your purposes to do so and you feel completely justified in doing it. Pedophiles feel the same way. See, morality IS relative.

Then what Jeny did was right because she believes it is. Right? If it was vile, OTOH, how can it be vile except by your own subjective standard - in which case why should a dispassionate observer prefer your standard to hers? IOW, how can the claim that what she did was vile have any meaning to anyone besides you?

How is my bahavior vile? I am claiming that it is BAD no matter HOW you spin it, you're claiming that pedophilia is only BAD to some people.

Right. To a pedophile it is not bad. In HIS mind it is not a bad thing to do. I've listened to these creeps talking about sharing love with minors. They cannot be cured of the notion that there is nothing wrong with it. THEY think it is a good thing.

I think you;re the one with a screwed up view of morlaity.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I think you have misinterpreted MY view of morality. I have not, in this instance made any comment on the rightness or wrongness of the act, only the perceptions of right and wrong from opposing viewpoints.

I already said I don;t wish it to happen to your or any other child.

But if it did THEN I would surely see the issue the way you do right?

You cannot accept that moral relativity only works in the abstract, that's not my fault.

You cannot accept that moral absolutism only works in the abstract and that is not my fault.

Lastly, I never said you should "envision" it, i asked you what you would DO, would you be swayed by his protestations that it would be a good thing.

Just by posing the question you are putting me in the hypothetical position of confronting someone who has abused my daughter just to drive home your point, which, btw, is based entirely on your misunderstanding what I've said.

According to you, it COULD be a good thing.


Go back and reread dear. According to me it is a bad thing. According to a pedophile it is a good thing. I am not now nor ever have been a pedophile.

Then what Jeny did was right because she believes it is. Right? If it was vile, OTOH, how can it be vile except by your own subjective standard - in which case why should a dispassionate observer prefer your standard to hers? IOW, how can the claim that what she did was vile have any meaning to anyone besides you?


Thank you. That was my point. The vileness of an act is in the eye of the beholder. The moral absolute against that act only exists in the minds of those of us who find it vile.

This whole thing started with my premise that right and wrong are what WE assign to things as we see fit. Typically, people come along and say that something universally accepted as wrong is ALWAYS wrong as an example of moral absolutism. Pedophilia is a perfect example, except for the fact that it isn't universally accepted as wrong.

[arod]

Thank you. That was my point.

Thank you for your admission that your complaint about Jeny's behavior is, by your own logic, meaningless.

[jeny]

Goodness OAG, sorry I ruffled your feathers. I simply disagree that because someone thinks pedophilia is ok, it makes it ok, even in some abstract world. maybe I'm just not as smart as you, I don't "get" or buy for that matter, your perception/reality theory. ::)

[Thunder Bay]

Why the hell do you always bring some off the wall topic like pedophilia into these discussions? What idiot has been teaching you such sloppy debating techniques? :)



Hahahaha.....the king of circular illogic weighs in with a dubious critique of sloppy techniques?????????????? That's a riot, arod....hahahahaha....it's not only ludicrous, but hilarious as well......hahahahahaha.....my sides are hurtin'. ;D

Good thing your next post made up for it, eh? ;D

[Thunder Bay]

Geez, OAG;

Now you're makin' a case for objective stupidity; who cares what a pedophile thinks? They should all be taken out back and plugged in their diseased brainpan, repeatedly, with a dull ice pick, then .357 magnumed. ;D

Any parole officer, court, or officer of a convicted pedophile should be forced to have the pedophile live in their neighborhood since they trust him so much to not do it again. Let their children be exposed to them.

Goodness OAG, sorry I ruffled your feathers. I simply disagree that because someone thinks pedophilia is ok, it makes it ok, even in some abstract world. maybe I'm just not as smart as you, I don't "get" or buy for that matter, your perception/reality theory. ::)


What makes it not OK Jeny?

Geez, OAG;

Now you're makin' a case for objective stupidity; who cares what a pedophile thinks? They should all be taken out back and plugged in their diseased brainpan, repeatedly, with a dull ice pick, then .357 magnumed. ;D


I'm not "makin' a case" for anything.

SDince I believe that pedophilia is an incurable disorder I completely agree that they should simply be killed. Until I hear of a case of someone being cured of that predeliction I will continue to hold that view however unrealistic it is in light of our current legal system preventing it. At the very least they can and should be caged for life.

Any parole officer, court, or officer of a convicted pedophile should be forced to have the pedophile live in their neighborhood since they trust him so much to not do it again. Let their children be exposed to them.


The same goes for serial rapists. The judge should only be allowed to release them if they move in down the street from him and his wife and daughters.