Pro-life Nebraska! Bill would allow deadly force to protect unborn (ethic, controversial)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There isn't a single, solitary truth ... That is truly the epitome of pathetic.
What is pathetic is that you have no basis whatsoever for conducting a meaningful conversation with anybody.
If "there is no truth" then there is no more talking, only shooting.
Here, let me give you something to read. Get back to me when you understand it.
----------------------
G.K. Chesterton: Philosophy for the Schoolroom
"What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. All this is the alphabet of thinking. And it has this special and positive point about it, that it can be taught in a school, like the other alphabet. Not to start an argument without stating your postulates could be taught in philosophy as it is taught in Euclid, in a common schoolroom with a blackboard. And I think it might be taught in some simple and rational degree even to the young, before they go out into the streets and are delivered over entirely to the logic and philosophy of the Daily Mail.
Much of our chaos about religion and doubt arises from this--that our modern sceptics always begin by telling us what they do not believe. But even in a sceptic we want to know first what he does believe. Before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about. And this confusion is infinitely increased by the fact that all the sceptics of our time are sceptics at different degrees of the dissolution of scepticism.
Now you and I have, I hope, this advantage over all those clever new philosophers, that we happen not to be mad. All of us believe in St. Paul's Cathedral; most of us believe in St. Paul. But let us clearly realize this fact, that we do believe in a number of things which are part of our existence, but which cannot be demonstrated. Leave religion for the moment wholly out of the question. All sane men, I say, believe firmly and unalterably in a certain number of things which are unproved and unprovable. Let us state them roughly.
Every sane man believes that the world around him and the people in it are real, and not his own delusion or dream. No man starts burning London in the belief that his servant will soon wake him for breakfast. But that I, at any given moment, am not in a dream, is unproved and unprovable. That anything exists except myself is unproved and unprovable.
All sane men believe that this world not only exists, but matters. Every man believes there is a sort of obligation on us to interest ourselves in this vision or panorama of life. He would think a man wrong who said, "I did not ask for this farce and it bores me. I am aware that an old lady is being murdered down-stairs, but I am going to sleep." That there is any such duty to improve the things we did not make is a thing unproved and unprovable.
All sane men believe that there is such a thing as a self, or ego, which is continuous. There is no inch of my brain matter the same as it was ten years ago. But if I have saved a man in battle ten years ago, I am proud; if I have run away, I am ashamed. That there is such a paramount "I" is unproved and unprovable. But it is more than unproved and unprovable; it is definitely disputed by many metaphysicians.
Lastly, most sane men believe, and all sane men in practice assume, that they have a power of choice and responsibility for action.
Surely it might be possible to establish some plain, dull statement such as the above, to make people see where they stand. And if the youth of the future must not (at present) be taught any religion, it might at least be taught, clearly and firmly, the three or four sanities and certainties of human free thought."
What is pathetic is that you have no basis whatsoever for conducting a meaningful conversation with anybody.
Somehow you are the basis of determining whether a person can or can not have a meaningful conversation based on a disagreement on an internet forum? Wow. Talk about desperate. You have no right to even *suggest* that someone can't carry on a meaningful conversation just because they happen to disagree with you on an internet forum. That's just stretching and goes beyond ignorance. That's asinine. Again totally typical of you right-wingers.
Quote:
If "there is no truth" then there is no more talking, only shooting.
Here, let me give you something to read. Get back to me when you understand it.
TL;DR. I never said there was "no truth". There you go again warping a statement to fit your argument! Typical and pathetic! What I said was there is no *single* *solitary* truth. There is a truth you believe in and a truth I believe. Just because we disagree on what truths they are doesn't mean that either of us are wrong. Clearly you don't want to understand this and choose to be under your veil of ignorance.
Get back to me when you learn the meaning of the term 'tolerance'
To me Hitler was wrong for what touted and for what he did.
The KKK is wrong and needs to just wither away before long.
Homophobes, all of them, just have deep seated homosexual thoughts and fear what they don't understand.
Child molesters are vile human beings ....
"To me"?
SO WHAT if these things are wrong to you.
They are right to them.
You have no argument for them or their ideas. All you can do is say "what you believe is wrong to me". And with all due respect, that isn't very persuasive. The conversation is over before it begins.
I never said there was "no truth". There you go again warping a statement to fit your argument! Typical and pathetic! What I said was there is no *single* *solitary* truth. There is a truth you believe in and a truth I believe. Just because we disagree on what truths they are doesn't mean that either of us are wrong.
It's the same damn thing. Either truth is objective or it doesn't exist for anybody. There is no "my truth" and "your truth". You're committing intellectual suicide.
You have no argument for them or their ideas. All you can do is say "what you believe is wrong to me". And with all due respect, that isn't very persuasive. The conversation is over before it begins.
I KNEW you would do that! Way to take that out of context and *attempt* to take this argument off in a different direction. Not going to happen.
There are many truths in this world and you choose not to accept that. The only one at fault here is you and your ignorant mindset.
Fact is, getting back on topic, you're just mad because you can't make women do exactly what you want when you want. Try going through a pregnancy and *THEN* tell them what to do with their bodies.
It's the same damn thing. Either truth is objective or it doesn't exist for anybody. There is no "my truth" and "your truth". You're committing intellectual suicide.
There is no single solidarity truth. There's many truths that many people believe.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 03-05-2012 at 02:27 PM..
Reason: Discuss topic, not poster
Fact is, getting back on topic, you're just mad because you can't make women do exactly what you want when you want.
OK, hold on. Maybe there's hope. Ignoring your idiotic framing of the issue for the moment, are you telling me that I'M MORALLY WRONG for "wanting to make women do exactly what I want"? What's morally wrong about it?
Is that statement objectively and universally true?
If you believe it is true, then it is self-contradictory, because you believe at least one thing is objectively and universally true - "there is no single solitary truth".
Furthermore, if the statement is true, then it is not wrong to state other truths, such as "there is a single solitary truth", because nothing is wrong when it comes to truth.
Are you telling me that I'M MORALLY WRONG for "wanting to make women do exactly what I want"?
Yes, I am. Incredibly so. You are morally wrong for wanting to make women do exactly what you want. That's the type of language saved for men who see women as nothing more than objects and pieces of meat. Women beaters also.
Quote:
What's morally wrong about it?
Besides how dated and archaic your mentality is? We're in 2012, not the 1800s or the 1950s. You seriously need your brain checked out if you even believe for a moment that your idea is morally right in anyway shape or form. How unfortunate it is to be you.
Yes, I am. Incredibly so. You are morally wrong for wanting to make women do exactly what you want ... You seriously need your brain checked out if you even believe for a moment that your idea is morally right in anyway shape or form. How unfortunate it is to be you.
ROFL! Someone please help me stop laughing!
I get it now!
What you've been trying to say is this:
"There is no *single* *solitary* truth when it is proposed by someone I disagree with! Otherwise, all of my opinions are absolutely true and you are morally wrong if you disagree!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
