When considering hypothetical philosophical ideals we can safely consider the hypothetical situation where we are considering only the case where the individuals are indeed speaking from a perspective of truth insofar as they can determine it.

That is a perfectly acceptable hypothetical situation to consider.

In fact, in that particular scenario why would we even bother to consider liars? That would obviously just toss a totally unnecessary wrench in the the whole conversation.

We already KNOW that people are free to lie if they chose to do so. So that's already a given. We understand that situation and now we can consider the situation where the people are only speaking what they sincerely believe to be true.

That is a valid CASE to consider.

Moreover, it's the only CASE that's worthy of consideration.

The CASE where people are being dishonest is a whole separate issue.

The irony here is that msmyka claims are being applauded.

Is this comment for me or jeanniebean?

You don't have to like or agree with what I say... doesn't bother me any.

Good luck on your quest to be CORRECT. I think you lost the actual topic of this thread a long time ago.

Examples:

1.__________________________________________________________


TS: "I believe aliens exists." <------ The true statement

Q: "Do you have any proof?" <------The wrong question.

Reply: "Proof of what?"


____________________________________________________________
2.

TS: "Aliens do in fact exist." <------------The true statement.

Q: "Do you have any proof." <-----------The right question.

Reply: "Yes I do, come with me, I will show you."

______________________________________________________________
3.

TS: "I believe aliens exist." <-------------The true statement.

Q: "Why do you believe that?" <------------The right question.

Reply: "I believe that because....."

_________________________________________________________________

The platform was very useful. It clearly allowed us to see how the true claims corresponded to fact/states of affairs. No one else considered liars. It is soley by virtue of our knowing what makes the preference claims true that we know how truth works, and how true claims about personal preferences were being confused with that which makes them true.

They are not claims, they are opinions. They are applauded because I understand her point of view.

I was referring to the scientifically confirmed fact of what is commonly called the "Twin Brother's Paradox".

Older Twin, "It's been 30 years since I last saw you!"

Younger Twin, "It's been only 1 year since we were last together".

Both of these men are speaking their subjective TRUTHS.

Yet, both of their subjective TRUTHS are indeed TRUE.

So here's a scientific case where truth has indeed been confirmed to be subjective.

Both men have different subjective truths that totally conflict with each other, yet both of their truths are true.

This is why it's called "Paradox" because it results in subjective truths that differ but which are both none-the-less true.

It's only a "paradox" if a person demands that truth be "absolute".

Therefore we must conclude that the very notion of "absolute truth" itself is a paradox.

QED via the scientific method!

The irony was in the fact that your claims conflict with Abra and Jb's. I see no problem with anything you've written thus far.

What gives?

Exactly!

We understand her point of view.

Communication has been successful.

And we applaud that!

Whether their is a conflict in your opinion or not would only be relevant if we sought to argue semantics or argue against her opinion or point of view.

It is ridiculous to argue against someone's opinion.

I understand her point of view. That is communication. You seek to argue and be correct. I seek to understand a point of view and communicate.

Two different agendas going on here...

I apologize as I misunderstood your comment. It does not matter if we agree or not as long as they can respect my opinion. It does however seem to me that a question which asked for opinions originally is being debated until someone is dubbed correct.

I agree.

It is strange that it took msmyka to bridge the gap of mis-understanding to understanding.

Understood. No problem.

Debates last as long as people disagree and continue the debate. As long as it things are not taken nor meant personally, there is little to no problem. Discussing the claims helps matters out.

Truth is central to everything thought, believed, and or known. Therefore, it is worthy of debate. It is worthy of getting it right.

Is it?

She said some of the exact same things that I've said all along.

Cheers!

Have some tea....and a donut.

Maybe she said them in a way that was easier to understand. You know, plain and simple English.

The words were no different. Only the source, and the pre-existing emotional attachments to and the presuppositions about that source.

Trust and truth.

I are good at that