Why not?



Why not?



Are they, how so?

Just whose post do you think she cited?

And I'm not ever going to, not interested.

Never works, just attracts more. Just look at this thread, it's getting intense.

You really should cut back on the sugar. And you do know that with toothpaste, unlike protein, you should spit, not swallow? Or was it that flu shot?

Yeah, that is the problem from anothers standpoint. Not just that we are quoting each other to respond but that in the macrocosm we are moving along the same avenues. It is but in the details that show the difference.

But I appreciate your honor and would debate you any time.

Now you're getting somewhere, but not where a prudent person would want to be. But it does explain a lot about the person.

Sorry, that is never going to happen. While I have no problem destroying that which exists, I will in the same stroke destroy the new world order.

I am of the premonition of Patrick Henry, if I can not be free, I will accept death because in death is freedom.

Are you not aware of what post you are responding to?

Sorry, that is not what is being implied. The statement connotates that you are an alternate ego of myself and I am making both posts.

Something to do with your challenges to that person are along the same lines as mine.

Sorry, didn't mean to but this nesting is getting fairly large. Miss one and the whole thing collapses. Didn't have time to edit within allotted window. My bad.



Abuses of logic, would that not be within the same arena as the words, a matter of perception. I believe I have been very explicit that the words we have been debating are truth and perception. Your generalization is not very explicit at all.



Oversimplify, not really. It is the attempt to add complexity to an otherwise very simple concept that causes the issues. And again, I but provide the definition, it is the action that places one in the "ideological box", a decision of self choice not a decision of judgement.




No, that is not the point. The point is your imposition of a right to judge the actions of another that is really none of your business. It is your propensity to ascribe your values upon another when you can ill be the injured party. And Odumbo by his very acts can't claim to be an injured party. However, your actions have caused me to be an injured party by trying to deny me my inalienable right of free expression. Trying to imply some arcane label only intensives the injury as a further usurpation of my right.



Please, go back and review, it was not I that brought the pedestal into the conversation. I but instilled that the pedestal would work good with a rope. It was your proclamation that because you didn't call Odumbo Odumbo that you didn't place him on a pedestal.



Ah, a matter we can fully agree upon. But if you can agree upon this premise, why the problem with the overall concept of truth and perception?



And what would be the difference? The truths of the universe has always been valid since the beginning of time and will be true into eternity. It is but the perceptions of man that waver.

And without morality, the truths of the universe cannot be understood because an immoral man has no truth but the color of truth to mask his true being. Is not man a physical being within a physical world? How can they ever be separated? What is true in the microcosm is true in the macrocosm.

"Truth is belligerent. Truth is, by its very nature, at war with the forces of falsehood and deceit." - Bertolt Brecht

Go girl, go.....

Have you been doing all this over in Ferguson? Did you have hershey stripes in your dress?

Hey, I read the whole of Why I Am Not A Christian. I really look forward to reading a whole lot more of his works on philosophy, not really interested in his math works but then it seems he wasn't either, many more philosophy works.

Was that because of snow? Those white hoods are hard to spot in the snow. Need to look for that dragon that looks like blood all over the snow, well that could be missed there too.

Is it that you aren't paying attention? Otherwise I don't believe you could make that statement.

Good thing that I have no faith in any that you have to offer, in fact vehemently opposed. So from that standpoint the analogy means less than nothing.

Humorous to many, but doesn't it make you feel good now that you are out of the closet?

And still you try to enforce your way of "seeing" things. I really do not care, how you see is how you see but means nothing to me.

But when you wish to bend words to your view, then that does mean something to me. To your desire to prescribe the objection to truth being objective and substitution a perception as truth. Even to go so far as to inject that truth cannot truly be known which is the mark of a solipsist.

The point being that to me it is Odumbo, and you may use whatever you desire, that is not my concern. To try and infuse something about a pedestal is not in any way relevant, we are not discussing worship.



Sure, I'm lazy at typing. Whatever.


My contention exactly. When lazy in one area, human trait is to imply laziness in other areas as well. After all, one has already laid the groundwork for the analogy being more than a presumption.



That's a lot of writing about the law, in which I didn't see anything significant that I disagreed with.

It seems that one of the purposes of that text was to say: drawing conclusions with 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as a metric isn't useful or desirable to you, so you reject my earlier argument.

It's unclear to me the extent to which you might be denying value of acknowledging and working with uncertainty when seeking an understanding of the truth. Some of your writing gives me the impression that you actually think you that most/all of your positions are matters of absolute truth.


I do not know why it would be unclear, there can be no value of acknowledging and working with uncertainty except to seek the understanding of truth. Otherwise to acknowledge or work with uncertainty is to acknowledge that man is incapable of truth. And as to the impressions of my writings would be the application of this whole discourse, the denial of truth. Truth is immutable, it is, was and will always be true. My writings are human and can only be perception, perceptions that waver as information is consumed and assimilated.

And because I stand proud with my perceptions many somehow get the impression that I am forcing my perceptions upon them. Why? I have no gun on them. I'm not going to jump through the net to physically commit assault much less battery against them. I can only surmise that it is a primal fear within the individual caused by believing and not believing the same thing. That isn't my issue and is a problem they must resolve within their own being.

That has been the crux of the whole discourse, your misunderstanding of truth and perception, not mine as I have no doubts.




Okay. I can see that many of them are solipsists without even realizing it, yet I don't accept that this *must* be the case that one either accepts the existence of objective truth, or one qualifies as a classical solipsist. The positions might not be rational, but there are other positions people can have, for example the belief that everyone's mind (not just one's own) is sure to exist (on a non-physical plane), while the 'physical' world is an illusion, and toss in some more new age garbage to flesh it out into an pseudo-ideology and you have something which is neither solipsism nor an acknowledgement of objective reality.




Yeah, we agree that reality exists and those that deny it are incorrect.

I'm saying (among other things) that while we can *know* that hammers cause concussions, we cannot *know* everything.




I agree with the overall analogy but my contention is that truth is always known to a moral and somewhat even an immoral man if there is but one question asked, would I feel good if that were to happen to me? Of course that doesn't apply with masochism if the other person is not of that slant.

So by your analogy those not a slave will be a slave and a slave is a slave. By the same token those not a victim will become a victim along with the victims.

And your idea of freedom is to surrender all personal freedoms and desire and to submit to the welfare of the whole, the philosophy of the new world order, Agenda 21.

And to believe that some new little fascist, socialist, neo-con, monarch, oligarch or dictator would somehow be any different than what is here now it the manifestation of an diseased psyche.

And why is it that the New World Order is being held at bay, the American people that refuse to surrender the guns, the last bastion in a world devoid of morality or value.

That is so true as the article says:

"I really worry that labeling does more harm than good, that it leads too many people away from it and it diminishes the market for GMOs that are the solution to a lot of the problems we face," said David Just, a professor at Cornell University and co-director of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs.

Imagine, a professor at a supposed leading university professor that thinks the populace are stupid and that the GMO can't stand on it's own so the public must be deceived for their own good. But a question that is never asked to these supposed experts, do you eat GMO over natural, of course they don't. GMOs are not allowed at the Monsanto cafeteria, they know better.

But that is not the issue with the other poster. He is upset because this opposition is in opposition to Agenda 21 and the New World Order. Such a wonderous thought, to have all those blue berets walking around making sure there are no illegal organic gardens being raised. Off to indoctrination camps for the offenders.