Obviously it is not perfectly clear so let me put it in other terms. I care not what you call him and I care less what you do with him. If you don't like Odumbo, then don't use it. Whether you put Odumbo on a pedestal or trample Odumbo underfoot, I care not.

But the basis of your argument lies in the fact you wish me to see as you see and I refuse because I just don't care. But I am open to all views and measure against my knowledge. Some I oppose, some I ignore and those rare others, I assimilate.

The key being I think for myself and change perceptions based on assimilation of knowledge. If you will notice, I said perception as it is a human fallacy to waver, well not so much a fallacy as an inherent ability. When one stops wavering, one stops learning and starts the journey into ignorant. But that in the only aspect of truth in the whole process, man's knowledge is but a perception of that around him.



We may be using common terms in different ways. From my pov, when people use language to discuss and debate what may or may not be true, we often parse out our different overall positions into individual claims. Working with claims, and evaluating the accuracy of claims, is a good process for determining what may or may not be true.


Way different ways, first I am of the old school and using letter acronyms for words is not clear and concise communications but just the desire to be lazy and have instant gratification. I have been studying law for a sum of time. Law is but understanding the origin of words and using them precisely from the correct language. There are no different ways just the failure to establish clarity of meaning.

A good example is truth, truth is immutable, it can't waver, it can't change. Truth is natural law such as harm. If one were deny gravity step off a tall building, one would pay the penalty for denial of truth.




Yes, of course. I was just saying that our legal system recognizes and embraces the ambiguity, the grey area, of evaluating 'how likely' it is that a claim is accurate, and making decisions based on this. I don't understand your position, but you seem (?) to be allergic to this nuance. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"


First, our legal system is not very lawful. It, in and of itself, is based on the "color of law". It is the misconception of man that supports this fallacy. And it is not based on evaluating "how likely" a claim is accurate, it is a system devised to be misconceiving by modifying what may or may not be allowed to be heard. It is a game designed to mitigate the guilty while shafting those that can't afford justice.

Therefore it has led you to a perception that is no where near the truth because of a lack of knowledge. Beyond a reasonable doubt is but a fallacy to give the "color" of that which has no basis in truth.

But then it does make for lively conversation at cocktail parties of those with a sense of not knowing what is not known. They believe justice is served when the judge throws out the weapon with the accused prints. But please, feel free to explain to the victims loved ones the justice of that.

And don't start with due process, that is but a symptom of the problem, justice is only for those that can afford it. But I study law and can afford all the justice in the world, it's just a matter of my time and that is a cost well worth the freedom.




There are some objective truths which I am equipped to know, and therefore I know that those that deny the existence of any objective truth are wrong. Being wrong doesn't make them idiots, and I was wrong to imply so earlier - but the *ways* that such people often argue for the non-existence of objective truth usually shows them to be idiots.


Again, a perception and a flawed one at that;

Nescience vs Ignorance - The context of not knowing.

Nescience

From the Latin verb nesciere: "to not know because knowledge was absent or unobtainable"

Ignorance

From the Latin verb ignorare: "to not know even though necessary information is present, because that information has been willfully refused or disregarded.

Ignorance carries blame. The masses are in a state of ignorance.
The question is why?

Therefore, idiots are those that choose to remain ignorant. It is a choice, a choice that a majority choose as their way of life.




No, much worse than that, the truth of the matter is they are not only idiots but suffer from:

Solipsism

From the Latin adjective solus: "alone" and the Latin pronoun ipse: "self".

The ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known. A perception they are god.

Solipsist are mentally ill.



They is the excuse, not the reality. If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, you are going to get a knot maybe even a concussion. But there are those of diminished abilities that need to learn my experience. And then there are the idiots that refuse to learn and do it again. A prime example are these sports stars that receive a concussion and goes back for more. But the real idiots then want to blame others later in life for there idiocy.



That isn't objective truth, just theorems. It is a theorem that becomes "proven" once accepted by peer review, that is until the next theorem shows it to be wrong to be replaced by the new synopsis. Objective truth is immutable, unchanging. It is based in natural law and has been part of the universe since it's inception.

But to put it in elementary terms, it is right and wrong, black and white, there are no grays. Black is the absolute absence of reflection of any light, white is the absolution reflection of all light, immutable. As an ex-cabinetmaker, let me tell you that within man's perception there are over 2 million colors labeled white but in objective terms, none of them are really white as man is incapable of producing the perfection of nature.

To recognize objective truth is actually very simple, it is the difference of right and wrong. In the age of morality, it was a well known concept taught by parents. Today, morality is a lost concept and without morality one cannot fathom truth.

And right is so simple it is ill understood as everyone wants to change it by their perception. Right is doing as one desires so long as that desire allows another to have the same freedom. It is not modifiable by the desires of another to force another to obey their whims.

Wrong is easily as simple. If you harm or impede upon another, it is wrong or in law, Malum in se: "A wrong in itself"; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law. Grindstaff v State, 214 Tenn. 58, 377 S.W. 2d 921, 926; State v Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 1 18P 2d 280, 287.

An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature, and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. Such are most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law (without the denouncement of a statute); as murder, larceny, etc.

But likewise in law most confuse Malum Prohibitum with wrong, but that is just the "color" of wrong, something prohibited by someone that perceived themselves as god to bend others to their will.

Again, that is the matter of your opinion, right or wrong. But until one knows and recognizes truth through knowledge, they has no perception of truth, just an ill-formed prejudiced opinion that attempts to bend the will of others to their sour outlook on life. If one grows up in a household where the parents distill it okay to take what is not theirs, then how can anyone expect that perception of reality to contain any "estimate" of truth regarding a thief?

Is stealing a loaf of bread okay but stealing a car criminal? So how can one have a perception of truth without an understanding of objective truth? They can't, it is impossible.

What you are trying to interject into the argument is human nature, not the laws of nature.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell

And for the same gentleman:

My desire and wish is that the things I start with should be so obvious that you wonder why I spend my time stating them. This is what I aim at because the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.

Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them.

- Bertrand Russell

With this and going through his biography, this is a gentlemen I could grow to love, I will have to read his works or at least his philosophical works because after perusing "Russel's Paradox", that boy had some loose screws.

Anyway, I believe what you posted does not imply what you are trying to imply but instead remands one to go look in the mirror.

Wow, thank you Metalwing:

The Natural-law Argument

Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

This is a very interesting perspective but I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions as he doesn't take into account the theorem of what is known and what is yet to be discovered, neiscience. While he is using this argument to explain his position of why he believes there is no god, his argument lacks validity because of his refusal to acknowledge this. But interesting all the same and with some areas that should provoke thought for those capable or such an endeavor.

The main thing which I wished you to 'see as I see' is that a particular interpretation of your earlier words does, in fact, give rise to a false dilemma argument.

Your interest in 'not putting obama on a pedestal' is not actually an argument in support of name calling.

Wanting others to be logical in the arguments they present is not the same as wanting them to change how they refer to the president.



Sure, I'm lazy at typing. Whatever.



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.




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.

you have already been wooped alnewman, in a fair fight, by all the powers and things you scream at, and call idiots, because in your head, fair is only but what you call it and want it to be...

fair to you is but you winning...

shaping things how you wish and want them to be...

but your not very good at shaping things how you wish them to be...

and so you lost...

because you take an adversarial approach in the mind first...

and so because of it, Goliath you are now scared of...

tis the very Goliath you helped build by deeming your self wiser than all whom disagree with you...

and all of sauls army could not bring Goliath down...

but i am sure many did try, whom deemed them self of honor, virtue, of god, of good, worthy, wise, and caring of others...

but truly any that profess such are completely the opposite.

when indeed, these but care about one thing.

their ego.

the moves of any wise one without ego spewing crap, after being beat in a chess game, are not as one whom somehow can't seem to grasp it self just got beat...

and begins hollering how it self only lost because of the rules being bent...

but one self beds the rules, and has for it self a damn good reason for each one it bends...

so the rules on earth are actually anything goes, may the best man win...

you just didn't t ever see your opponent as worthy, so don't see the true rules at play...

one is free to do whatever it wants in life, breaks any rules it wishes...

as long as it self is willing to take the penalty that was CREATED BY THE MAJORITY RULES...

not by god, or the devil, or the constitution...

not seeing such is only due to an over ego inflation of the self wisdom to tremendous heights.

a world order is already in place, and only those diluted with them self as wise would not realize such, still living and swimming in their own heads, because one can find another like one self who does not see accurately yet...

since they have been focusing on dazzling others with their purported intellect, as showing off on the playground for attention...

please...

you your self have been gobbling up a new world order for many years now, because you were loving your own life's pleasures, and stand and stood against a new world order, as such be the only reason such a vehicle cannot be added to...

truly, one is just angry, that it self was outdone.

you should have proved the words of your own leaders as true, as did not many share with the whole world in honor their intentions, and you would be ahead of the curve, but because one deem many idiots, one has been left way way way behind the curve, and dear brother, it seems so far behind as to never catch up, and not be run over by all those who shall see the good in a new world order...

stop being sad sadder saddest.

cheer up!

HAIL THE ONE WORLD ORDER!

smiles

you guys have a big problem it is called where you live, we don't tolerate that crap up here

smiles...

glad it's as it is supposed to be Dodo...

happy to see ya enjoyin...

texas pete in salt shaker sprinkled over popcorn really pops!

hehehe...

yea, communist never tolerate anyone but them self.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Ah...

quite unaware one be...

one has not been paying much attention if it does not know i have been voicing a one world constitution or world order for many years now, seeing that if we don't have one, forward progress will be impossible, not to mention a third world war impossible to avoid...

without a world order the peoples shall continue to devolve further into the narcissistic sociopathic thinking that each it self should be the decider and dictator of what all other human words and behavior should be...

little hitlers that demand control over others, create a hitleristic governance, but blame the iron fist it self wished and demanded.

it tis quite humorous how the small minded revile a world order they them self created.

why...

simply due to the narcissistic emotional trigger such induces in their bodies, not seeing, without a world order, only world chaos and mayhem will now exist, due the narcissist mentality so welcomely adopted them self as astute...

by the individualistic notion of one self be wise in and of it self, if it but find others who agree with one self...

huh...

so the kkk finds others who agree and so deem them self as wise in their thinking and goals...

is that not the natural first way humans decide to prove to them self they are wise and smart...

and so these become blind to what they them self are creating...

it is quite humorously sad that the people them self have insisted on the very police state they are creating more and more each day with their own outlook and behavior, of insisting and demanding revenge and control of all others, not like them selves...

on insisting in their minds them self be a victim.

screaming and demanding revenge as primitive beasts, wanting a lion the law to extract it for them...

somehow diluted revenge be justice...

but all the while still deeming them self incredible creatures of advanced love and empathy and certainly good people, all the while with blood on their lips...

self lunacy...

and unsanity.

i can assure you, no one at this point that still be sane, would not show appreciation for order, and for the police and governance, as they are all that is stopping the flood gates of crazed maniacal psychopaths from devouring what is left of any good within society.

and now after years of breeding such demanders in society, one would propose a world order the fault of a world order, and not rather the creation created to fittingly react to but the peoples them self.

to counter this animalistic primitive mentality that screamed for more and more laws them selves, to perpetrate vengeance and control upon each other...

please.

it was but the insistence of trying to control all others to be like one self under the false guise of legislating morality that created such...

most only with the will and intent of shutting up all whom do not agree with one self, that has now created the very system now revile against and deemed as the culprit...

no different than Hitler was the least to blame, for the most blame would be upon the millions who wished others not like them self be annihilated and shut up, who than created and choose a leader for them self to follow.

those who deemed other not as moral as them self.

erase morality, bring freedom.

neither do dictators

uh, the same as a communist, hehehe...

Al, when you quote my messages you leave the nested markup hanging unclosed. If you don't want to properly close the nested markup, maybe you could change the font or something, to indicate who is saying what. Otherwise it looks like you are speaking my own words, without delineating that those are my words.



Yeah, we agree that we don't care too much what the other does, but just like you take issue with my 'bending words' I take issue with you implying, but neither owning nor disavowing, abuses of logic.



Sigh. I hold that (a) there are some truths which are easily known to most people, (b) some which may be easy for some to know and difficult or maybe impossible for others to know, and (c) there may exist some truths which cannot be known to humans.

I also hold that you seem to like to oversimplify. Particularly when deciding which 'ideological box' to put someone in.




Okay, I'm ready to give up, as you keep taking this in circles. That's the point you care about. The point I cared about was: your defence of childish name calling (or Obama) rested on a false dilemma fallacy.



You were the one who brought pedestals into the conversation. You spoke against placing obama on a pedestal.




That's good.



I believe that you have been focused on 'moral truths', while I've been focused on "truths about the physical universe".