Rights

[deanhills]

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

A simple example : You could say that if you went to the movies, that it is a personal and unique experience for each individual. If asked what was thought of the film, there would be a different view from each individual because of their perceptions.

It is still factually so that you thought the movie was too long. That is only be True to you, of course. It is still factually so that you experienced going to the movies.

So, we see here that there is perception and objectivism at the same time. perception does not change the fact that there are concrete facts available.

Let's take the movie Dr. Zhivago. When I saw it a few years ago, I thought it was horribly long-winding and it went on and on. A year ago when I saw it however, I was completely captivated with it, and it felt like no time at all. My perception at that time differs from today. Nothing is static. So truth can't be static. There could be a factual truth that I did see the movie twice. How I perceived the movie was different in both cases. Same with family and friends. People change all the time and our relationships with them are changing too.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

For example, child abuse occurs in society. That is the Truth. One cannot counter that by saying that child abuse is also subject to perception in certain ways.

No, child abuse is subject to perception. When someone from the outside looks at a parent hugging his child in public, there may easily be thoughts in his head that the parent is abusing his child. A parent may be scolding his child in an intense argument, and from the outside people could regard that as abuse. But is it abuse? We can argue that many ways. For example when you use harsh words in your postings, some people may regard it as abuse. You may perceive it to be different as seeking or educating the truth. No two people see things the exact same way, and some differ radically.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

I have read Plato, and the garbage about the cave. That is applicable to vision, experience and so on. That does not mean that there are not concrete facts. Perhaps you should have considered the hypocrisy of declaring this the absolute Truth when you claim there is no such thing.

No, for me, Plato's allegory does apply. Take child abuse as an example. Most of what we view about child abuse is a mirror of our own internal thinking processes. None of us have the facts of the child abuse in front of us. We are given the facts second hand. So it is as in the cave. Our hands are bound behind us, we can't see the actual abuse, we can only see shadows of it against a wall and we make our own interpretations of those shadows.

[Seer Travis Truman]

Originally Posted by deanhills

Let's take the movie Dr. Zhivago. When I saw it a few years ago, I thought it was horribly long-winding and it went on and on. A year ago when I saw it however, I was completely captivated with it, and it felt like no time at all. My perception at that time differs from today. Nothing is static. So truth can't be static. There could be a factual truth that I did see the movie twice. How I perceived the movie was different in both cases. Same with family and friends. People change all the time and our relationships with them are changing too.

Does not matter. That is nothing to do with it.

No, child abuse is subject to perception. When someone from the outside looks at a parent hugging his child in public, there may easily be thoughts in his head that the parent is abusing his child. A parent may be scolding his child in an intense argument, and from the outside people could regard that as abuse. But is it abuse? We can argue that many ways. For example when you use harsh words in your postings, some people may regard it as abuse. You may perceive it to be different as seeking or educating the truth. No two people see things the exact same way, and some differ radically.

Thats another dismissive garbage argument. And I notice it is used selectively when you want to oppose something you cannot fault.

Child abuse exists, and it is known. You are just lying because you want children to be used as worthless poison containers on a subconcious level.

No, for me, Plato's allegory does apply. Take child abuse as an example. Most of what we view about child abuse is a mirror of our own internal thinking processes. None of us have the facts of the child abuse in front of us. We are given the facts second hand. So it is as in the cave. Our hands are bound behind us, we can't see the actual abuse, we can only see shadows of it against a wall and we make our own interpretations of those shadows.

You are full of it. Your philosophy is level is retarded. You just pull out the "Platos cave" as an excuse not to answer.

You did not apply this garbage to the sea-world thread, now did you? No. This whole thing is a pathetic cloak for your ignorance. I could apply this drivel to every post you make and say the same thing.

You dont even answer to what I say anymore, you just repeat that nonsense about caves as if you think it makes you look intelligent.

[deanhills]

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Thats another dismissive garbage argument. And I notice it is used selectively when you want to oppose something you cannot fault.

Maybe in your opinion perhaps. It would appear that you hold to absolutes in the truth. There is only one truth. I don't agree with only one truth. If there were only one truth, then we would not need a justice system.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Child abuse exists, and it is known. You are just lying because you want children to be used as worthless poison containers on a subconcious level.

Strong words? I did not say child abuse did not exist. It definitely exists. I said that it is not always easy to define along absolute lines.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

You are full of it. Your philosophy is level is retarded. You just pull out the "Platos cave" as an excuse not to answer.

Strong words again. You are right of course. Our philosophy levels are different.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

You did not apply this garbage to the sea-world thread, now did you? No. This whole thing is a pathetic cloak for your ignorance. I could apply this drivel to every post you make and say the same thing.

You dont even answer to what I say anymore, you just repeat that nonsense about caves as if you think it makes you look intelligent.

If I have not answered something you said, can you let me know specifically what was unanswered. It most certainly was not deliberate.

With regard to wanting to look intelligent, I could not think of another analogy to use as the one about the caves describes best what I was trying to say. Whether that is intelligent or not is in the eye of the beholder.

[Seer Travis Truman]

Originally Posted by deanhills

Maybe in your opinion perhaps. It would appear that you hold to absolutes in the truth. There is only one truth. I don't agree with only one truth.

I answered that already, you lost. True Reality is relative Truth, but Forbidden Truth is concrete. Some Truths are relative, others not.

If there were only one truth, then we would not need a justice system.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Strong words? I did not say child abuse did not exist. It definitely exists. I said that it is not always easy to define along absolute lines.

Bearded man fallacy. Just because it is hard (if not impossible) to define when a stubble becomes a beard, does not mean that we cannot identify stubble or a beard itself.

Strong words again. You are right of course. Our philosophy levels are different.

I know. Your ability at philosophy is dismal.

If I have not answered something you said, can you let me know specifically what was unanswered. It most certainly was not deliberate.

It is a deliberate avoidance, whether you deny this to yourself I am not certain. What IS certain is that everytime you encounter a question or argument that you dont like, you just argue dismissively and rattle about some form of relativity.

With regard to wanting to look intelligent, I could not think of another analogy to use as the one about the caves describes best what I was trying to say. Whether that is intelligent or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Its not just that. The whole idea about dismissive-based relativity is used by those who are out of their depth who wish to deny defeat and pretend that they have an intelligent response when they are out of ammunition.

[deanhills]

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

I answered that already, you lost. True Reality is relative Truth, but Forbidden Truth is concrete. Some Truths are relative, others not.

If there would be a difference of opinion of what the "Forbidden Truth" is, who gets to decide what it is? If True Reality in your philosophy is relative Truth, how can Forbidden Truth be concrete?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

That makes no sense whatsoever.

We all have different perceptions of the truth. Justice has to decide what is true and false. If there is only one truth, then justice would not be necessary.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Bearded man fallacy. Just because it is hard (if not impossible) to define when a stubble becomes a beard, does not mean that we cannot identify stubble or a beard itself.

Not the best of analogies that you have used so far. Every culture is different in the world. If someone in an Arab country disciplines their child by slapping him/her on the arm, this may be seen as abuse in Australia. But not in that Arab country. Abuse is not a finite term for use on people as people differ from one another. Problem is also, now that society has begun to uncover abuse, it looks at a child interacting with a parent with coloured glasses. Parental rights are in jeopardy.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

I know. Your ability at philosophy is dismal.

In your opinion perhaps. How you see my ability is irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

It is a deliberate avoidance, whether you deny this to yourself I am not certain. What IS certain is that everytime you encounter a question or argument that you dont like, you just argue dismissively and rattle about some form of relativity.

Avoidance of what? Judgment again?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Its not just that. The whole idea about dismissive-based relativity is used by those who are out of their depth who wish to deny defeat and pretend that they have an intelligent response when they are out of ammunition.

That is your personal opinion and judgment. Again completely irrelevant. Attacking the person that you are debating with definitely has a ring of ad hominem abusive in it. In my opinion it does not make for a good debate.

[mybodymyself]

All for this, but huh at the same time. Need further explanation what the original poster was talking about here.

[Dirk]

I would say the concept of rights is socially subjective - not necessarily state-driven.

[Seer Travis Truman]

Originally Posted by deanhills

If there would be a difference of opinion of what the "Forbidden Truth" is, who gets to decide what it is?

Nobody ever decides Truth. The Truth is there already, waiting to be recognized and embraced.

If True Reality in your philosophy is relative Truth, how can Forbidden Truth be concrete?

Because they are seperate.

We all have different perceptions of the truth. Justice has to decide what is true and false.

Justice is nothing to do with Truth.

If there is only one truth, then justice would not be necessary.

That makes no sense. Its retarded.

Not the best of analogies that you have used so far.

Retarded answer. Wrong. Firstly, I proved a fallacy of logic in your answer. Second, that is an explanation of the fallacy that is commonly used.

Every culture is different in the world.

All cultures do not represent Truth and are irrelevant.

Parental rights are in jeopardy.

No. Since society is based on sacrificing every child to their biological creators as poison-containers, "parental rights" can never be in jeopardy.

The Truth is that parental rights should not exist at all. All parental rights are is a smoke-screen to allow the unjust and brutal enslavement and ownership of children by human beings for the purpose of trying to control and appeal to the citizen-slaves. By addicting adults to child abuse and child-domination, society achieves both its goals of breaking and destroying children, and giving an offering to appease the previous generation of broken and abused children who have now become adults.

Just as a horse is "broken", all human must also be broken by the insane and perverse societal decree. parental rights are just a system of promoting and sponsering the abuse and societal decree that children are worthless owned property of the slave-owner poison-container masters.

In your opinion perhaps. How you see my ability is irrelevant to me.

It should be relevant to you, because your abilities are pathetic.

Avoidance of what? Judgment again?

You avoid the points I make by simply dismissing every one by arguing everything is just opinion/relative. It does not work.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman
Its not just that. The whole idea about dismissive-based relativity is used by those who are out of their depth who wish to deny defeat and pretend that they have an intelligent response when they are out of ammunition.

The mantra of the losing side, the big dummy, the bigot, the failure has always been "its just an opinion".

Sorry, but repeating the blunder in order to defend it is not only extremely fallacious reasoning, its retarded and shows a pathetic inability to recognise Truth.

Again completely irrelevant. Attacking the person that you are debating with definitely has a ring of ad hominem abusive in it. In my opinion it does not make for a good debate.

Its not abuse, nor is it ad hominem. You just argue everything the same way - its all relative/opinion. Yet, you dont hold that standard to what you say. You can claim you do, you can lie and delude all you like. You are a waste of time to debate.

[deanhills]

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Nobody ever decides Truth. The Truth is there already, waiting to be recognized and embraced.

OK then who gets to decide what is truth and what is fiction? And who is right? If there are so many perceptions of the truth, how do we know what is the truth for sure? Who gets to decide that?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Because they are seperate.

How can they be separate? There has to be a connection between the two. I.e. truth being truth, so forbidden truth is still truth?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Justice is nothing to do with Truth.

OK then, what is justice then in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

That makes no sense. Its retarded.

What does retarded mean? And why does it not make any sense?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Retarded answer. Wrong. Firstly, I proved a fallacy of logic in your answer. Second, that is an explanation of the fallacy that is commonly used.

You haven't proven a single thing.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

All cultures do not represent Truth and are irrelevant.

So who then represents the truth? You?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

No. Since society is based on sacrificing every child to their biological creators as poison-containers, "parental rights" can never be in jeopardy.

In your opinion perhaps. I see reported cases on a daily basis of children that have been removed from parents because society has had a subjective view about the parents' inability of taking care of their children. Or that children must go to school, and subject themselves to abuse at school etc etc. If there were no parental rights, then Parents' Associations would not be necessary.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

The Truth is that parental rights should not exist at all. All parental rights are is a smoke-screen to allow the unjust and brutal enslavement and ownership of children by human beings for the purpose of trying to control and appeal to the citizen-slaves. By addicting adults to child abuse and child-domination, society achieves both its goals of breaking and destroying children, and giving an offering to appease the previous generation of broken and abused children who have now become adults.

Maybe the parents would have a different opinion to yours? Partially agreed that not all parents are perfect and responsible, but maybe you are going a little overboard in your criticism?

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Just as a horse is "broken", all human must also be broken by the insane and perverse societal decree. parental rights are just a system of promoting and sponsering the abuse and societal decree that children are worthless owned property of the slave-owner poison-container masters.

This does not sound like a point of view, more like ranting.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

It should be relevant to you, because your abilities are pathetic.

These kind of personal remarks by you are repetitive as well are used to distract from your own flaws. You apparently have to show your own superiority by attacking others, rather than arguing points. I prefer to ignore this. It should be irrelevant to a discussion on a forum.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

You avoid the points I make by simply dismissing every one by arguing everything is just opinion/relative. It does not work.

The mantra of the losing side, the big dummy, the bigot, the failure has always been "its just an opinion".

Sorry, but repeating the blunder in order to defend it is not only extremely fallacious reasoning, its retarded and shows a pathetic inability to recognise Truth.

And you seem to be repeating this same personal judgments over and over again. You're not adding anything to the discussion at all.

Originally Posted by Seer Travis Truman

Its not abuse, nor is it ad hominem. You just argue everything the same way - its all relative/opinion. Yet, you dont hold that standard to what you say. You can claim you do, you can lie and delude all you like. You are a waste of time to debate.

It most certainly is ad hominem. If I argue things the same it is because your responses are the same. You are not contributing anything new to the discussion.

[adagio]

Many people regard relativism as one of the greatest of the con­temporary threats to open society. But I think that the so-called ‘identity philosophies’ pose a greater threat.
Many people today say that truth is relative, but most of them do not really believe what they say. When you question them, you typically find that it is not really truth that they think is relative, but our knowledge or beliefs about what is true. Indeed, if you question them long enough you may even find that what they really want to say is that our knowledge and beliefs are inherently fallible and subject to error—something that would actually be impossible were truth really relative.

Identity philosophers, on the other hand, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts—so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance.
But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others.

Our attempt to get at the truth may lead people to regard open society as intolerant since it involves such uncom­fort­able things as criticism, and confron­tation, and culture clash, and since these things obviously do not leave people alone. But the idea that it is intolerant to be critical is one of the greatest of the con­fusions that have been foisted upon us by relativ­ism. Make no mistake about it. If we could with certainty discern the truth in all of its objectivity, then the only excuse for tolerat­ing false ideas would be our disrespect for the people who hold them to be true. But we cannot discern the truth with certainty. And we think that an objective truth may nonetheless exist. We think that we have an obligation to try to discover what it is, even if we cannot know for sure, and an obliga­tion to consider views that seem false—for the simple reason that they might actually be true. And if we are really serious about this, if we are not merely sham­ming our fallibili­ty but really think that views that differ from our own might actually be true, then we will not merely tolerate these views. We will respect them.

We will, in other words, respect them enough to try to deter­mine whether or not they are really true. And we will do this the only way we can: by deriving conse­quences from them, and by checking to see whether and to what extent those consequenc­es conflict with what we think is true.
All of this is already implicit in the motto ‘I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get closer to the truth’, which is the motto that Popper used to formulate his attitude of critical rationalism. And it is also implicit in the three ethical princi­ples that he thought ‘form the basis of every rational discus­sion, that is, of every discussion undertaken in the search for truth’:

1. The principle of fallibility: perhaps I am wrong and perhaps you are right. But we could easily both be wrong.
2. The principle of rational discussion: we want to try, as imperson­ally as possible, to weigh up our reasons for and against a theory: a theory that is definite and criticizable.
3. The principle of approximation to the truth: we can nearly always come closer to the truth in a discussion which avoids personal attacks. It can help us to achieve a better understand­ing; even in those cases where we do not reach an agree­ment.

If we take this attitude and these three principles seriously, then we will not merely tolerate views that differ from our own. We will not, in fact, really tolerate them at all. We will, on the contrary, consider them seriously, and as very possibly true, and we will, for that reason, criticize them seriously, and as imperson­ally as possible, in an effort to test them, and to try to determine whether or not they are actually true.
And we will, in any event, regard dissenting opinions, and the people who hold them, with the utmost respect, since we will recog­nize a possibility of learning from them, and, hence, of increasing our own knowledge.