|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 13:10:12 GMT
I suppose we all know that truth and popular opinions are not always the same thing. Yet serious problems and confusion often arise especially lately.
In politics for example popular opinions often define the truth, and so they should, but only for certain categories. Popular opinion does not matter to science, or at least it should not. What is or is not true about religion should not be determined by voters with no education in religion. Argumentum ad populum can be a "logical fallacy" but it is not always.
Nevertheless it can be necessary to develop a majority amenable to scientific and religious truths. Otherwise the majority might trample scientific and religious truths under foot.
My main concern is truth, first, foremost and above all. I endeavor to present it. That can include defending it. If I try to win people over to the truth it is only by the truth, not by trickery.
There is a problem with the attitudes about faith. Many people here have for a long time treated faith like it is a disease. I have told the truth about this. Faith is not a disease. It can be efficient. It can save people the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over.
That is not the whole story though. When people of faith do not follow good leaders, their faith becomes the problem. I have told the truth about this also. This does not represent a change in my opinions. It is not a cheat to trick people into liking what I say. None of it is. It is all the simple truth without embellishment.
It is important that we all be aware of all these things as we try to restore good leadership so that people of faith are the blessing they should be to society and do not become a problem again.
A most difficult obstacle is that the "majority" at least at one time recently was a bad leader and did not give good direction to faithful people. They are having extreme difficulty being set on proper rails.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 2, 2019 16:00:16 GMT
Many religions, especially Islam but also Christianity, have an image issue that may in part be due to poor leadership, and are in need of major PR campaigns to rehabilitate said image, ones that would hopefully be sincere attempts to reform.
What is your opinion of the leadership of Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham?
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jan 2, 2019 16:17:10 GMT
religions, thus far, have done nothing but spin giant webs of convoluted cluster fucks. each one standing on the ridiculous pretense that they have a super special link to heavenly spirit father who loves us with all his gooey goodness. FAIL or those who claim current revelations of those conquering heterosexual warriors who shall save us all from all manner of cock smoking. DONE.
religions have always existed for the rhetorically retarded among us. those who would rather brush off rational thinking then dive right in and see where the current takes them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 2, 2019 17:43:55 GMT
In politics for example popular opinions often define the truth If you're going to start with an assertion as bizarre as this you really shouldn't go any further until you explain just you mean by it (nothing else in your post provided a clue). Popular opinion in politics may win out, and it may often coincide with the truth, but how in the world does it serve to DEFINE the truth? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 23:24:22 GMT
In politics for example popular opinions often define the truth If you're going to start with an assertion as bizarre as this you really shouldn't go any further until you explain just you mean by it (nothing else in your post provided a clue). Popular opinion in politics may win out, and it may often coincide with the truth, but how in the world does it serve to DEFINE the truth? Is it really so mind boggling? If the voters say you owe $xyz in taxes, how much do you really owe? A) $xyz B) Any other amount |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 2, 2019 23:36:59 GMT
If you're going to start with an assertion as bizarre as this you really shouldn't go any further until you explain just you mean by it (nothing else in your post provided a clue). Popular opinion in politics may win out, and it may often coincide with the truth, but how in the world does it serve to DEFINE the truth? Is it really so mind boggling? If the voters say you owe $xyz in taxes, how much do you really owe? A) $xyz B) Any other amount That's already covered where I said, "Popular opinion in politics may win out". And if that's really all you meant, that, in politics, popular opinion often gets its way, then you have a lot to learn about how to properly express yourself. Phrasing it as "popular opinions often define the truth" is far off the mark from what you now say you meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 23:51:45 GMT
Many religions, especially Islam but also Christianity, have an image issue that may in part be due to poor leadership, and are in need of major PR campaigns to rehabilitate said image, ones that would hopefully be sincere attempts to reform. What is your opinion of the leadership of Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham? I usually do not have enough time to watch the religious television channel. In Richmond there is the broadcast television channel operated by Daystar. In other cities TBN or other channels might be available. Over the holidays though I was checking out my new TV (!) and watched some Daystar. Most of the shows were from "prosperity preachers" whose message is basically prosperity can be yours if only you join our club, and by the way we accept gifts. I have accused "evangelicals" of having no rules for themselves, just for others. You don't have to go by what I say though. They say that themselves on their own broadcasts or at least it's things like God doesn't count your sins because Jesus already paid in full and I guess you've heard that enough yourself to know how it goes. I doubt that's the moral leadership the country needs, pardon me. If you dare mention the Ten Commandments they get upset and start babbling about how it's impossible for anyone to follow the law. Good leadership can be at a national level but more likely will be local; parents, teachers, friends, perhaps surprisingly some local politicians, various religious or entertainment organizations and so on. I suspect the worst sidetrack has been the unhealthy dependence of public schools on "science" as a guide to morality. That's not what science does. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 3, 2019 0:01:24 GMT
Is it really so mind boggling? If the voters say you owe $xyz in taxes, how much do you really owe? A) $xyz B) Any other amount That's already covered where I said, "Popular opinion in politics may win out". And if that's really all you meant, that, in politics, popular opinion often gets its way, then you have a lot to learn about how to properly express yourself. Phrasing it as "popular opinions often define the truth" is far off the mark from what you now say you meant.
One thing I did learn that apparently you did not is that communication is only possible between parties with commonly understood signs. Strangers are bound to find some things difficult to communicate and might have to develop signs. For success it will likely require an effort from both ends. I would help from my end all I can but you seem determined to have things your own way. Some "facts" are determined by popular vote. Others are not. There is no need for you to be upset by any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 3, 2019 0:06:01 GMT
That's already covered where I said, "Popular opinion in politics may win out". And if that's really all you meant, that, in politics, popular opinion often gets its way, then you have a lot to learn about how to properly express yourself. Phrasing it as "popular opinions often define the truth" is far off the mark from what you now say you meant.
communication is only possible between parties with commonly understood signs. Something that you seem chronically and perversely determined to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2019 0:16:32 GMT
communication is only possible between parties with commonly understood signs. Something that you seem chronically and perversely determined to avoid. This is an interesting comment from Planet Arlon, who has a long history of NOT subscribing to common meanings between people unless he defines them himself, since he is known for 'having argued with dictionaries and won'! |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 3, 2019 0:21:56 GMT
communication is only possible between parties with commonly understood signs. Something that you seem chronically and perversely determined to avoid. Understanding definitions is a major part of what I do. I do not "avoid" any definitions since I understand that all definitions are arbitrary. It is not my purpose here to enforce any definition of truth on you. I only try to make it clear what definitions are used. Different people have different uses for words. To an economist "scarce" can mean having a price higher than zero. You didn't know that did you? When people here disagree with me on definitions it is usually because they believe that some definition "exists" outside any parties' use for one. They do not exist except as they are used, correctly applied and understood. When you were in elementary school you were perhaps not informed of how this works since it was important for you to build a large vocabulary of words with the "right" definition. As an adult (are you one?) you should be able to understand that there are no "right" definitions, just useful ones. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2019 0:36:03 GMT
Something that you seem chronically and perversely determined to avoid. Understanding definitions is a major part of what I do. I do not "avoid" any definitions since I understand that all definitions are arbitrary. It is not my purpose here to enforce any definition of truth on you. I only try to make it clear what definitions are used. Different people have different uses for words. To an economist "scarce" can mean having a price higher than zero. You didn't know that did you? When people here disagree with me on definitions it is usually because they believe that some definition "exists" outside any parties' use for one. They do not exist except as they are used, correctly applied and understood. When you were in elementary school you were perhaps not informed of how this works since it was important for you to build a large vocabulary of words with the "right" definition. As an adult (are you one?) you should be able to understand that there are no "right" definitions, just useful ones. You just contradicted yourself. Commonly accepted definitions are 'commonly understood signs'. They serve the purpose of allowing people to communicate with each other and understand what the other is saying. No wonder your posts are word salads if you don't understand this basic concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 3, 2019 0:45:12 GMT
Understanding definitions is a major part of what I do. I do not "avoid" any definitions since I understand that all definitions are arbitrary. It is not my purpose here to enforce any definition of truth on you. I only try to make it clear what definitions are used. Different people have different uses for words. To an economist "scarce" can mean having a price higher than zero. You didn't know that did you? When people here disagree with me on definitions it is usually because they believe that some definition "exists" outside any parties' use for one. They do not exist except as they are used, correctly applied and understood. When you were in elementary school you were perhaps not informed of how this works since it was important for you to build a large vocabulary of words with the "right" definition. As an adult (are you one?) you should be able to understand that there are no "right" definitions, just useful ones. You just contradicted yourself. Commonly accepted definitions are 'commonly understood signs'. They serve the purpose of allowing people to communicate with each other and understand what the other is saying. No wonder your posts are word salads if you don't understand this basic concept. I have not contradicted myself. The problem here is with your (mis)understanding of the word "commonly." You are thinking that "commonly" means everyone. When I say "commonly" I mean two ends of some instance of communication. Many definitions of simple ideas are of course understood "commonly" in your sense of everyone (or almost everyone) but those are the very simplest of ideas and perhaps the only ideas you have ever used. You still function at an elementary level. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2019 1:01:11 GMT
You just contradicted yourself. Commonly accepted definitions are 'commonly understood signs'. They serve the purpose of allowing people to communicate with each other and understand what the other is saying. No wonder your posts are word salads if you don't understand this basic concept. I have not contradicted myself. The problem here is with your (mis)understanding of the word "commonly." You are thinking that "commonly" means everyone. When I say "commonly" I mean two ends of some instance of communication. Many definitions of simple ideas are of course understood "commonly" in your sense of everyone (or almost everyone) but those are the very simplest of ideas and perhaps the only ideas you have ever used. You still function at an elementary level. Yes you have. Would you and that bloody idiot Heeeeey STOP telling what I think? It is ridiculous, illogical and beyond stupid. Hoe could ANYONE with a grasp of the English language think that 'commonly' means everyone? The fact that you even propose that and project it onto me is just typical of your nonsense word salads, and confused logic. WTF That does not make ANY sense and is an inappropriate response to the point that you contradicted your comments about definitions. Seriously? when you are the confused and contradictory one here? More projection as well an un called for ad hom, I see. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 3, 2019 11:41:41 GMT
I have not contradicted myself. The problem here is with your (mis)understanding of the word "commonly." You are thinking that "commonly" means everyone. When I say "commonly" I mean two ends of some instance of communication. Many definitions of simple ideas are of course understood "commonly" in your sense of everyone (or almost everyone) but those are the very simplest of ideas and perhaps the only ideas you have ever used. You still function at an elementary level. Yes you have. Would you and that bloody idiot Heeeeey STOP telling what I think? It is ridiculous, illogical and beyond stupid. Hoe could ANYONE with a grasp of the English language think that 'commonly' means everyone? The fact that you even propose that and project it onto me is just typical of your nonsense word salads, and confused logic. WTF That does not make ANY sense and is an inappropriate response to the point that you contradicted your comments about definitions. Seriously? when you are the confused and contradictory one here? More projection as well an un called for ad hom, I see. You are not following well and I'm rather certain there isn't much more a person can do to help you. I will try my best though. For a communication to be successful the sender (1) and the receiver (2) must be using the same definitions of terms. It is not necessary that anyone else in the world use the same definitions. It is not necessary that their definitions be recognized by any authority, except the two parties themselves in mutual agreement. Especially important to note in this context, it is not necessary for them to use your definition of anything. Are you with this so far? When I say that communication is only possible between parties with "commonly" understood signs I mean that parties (1) and (2) must "commonly" understand their signs. There is no goal post shifting. There is no contradiction. Admittedly I have no idea what you mean by "commonly." It is clear however that you are not getting my meaning. You clipped off the part where I went on to explain that strangers might have to negotiate definitions of terms. You fail to negotiate terms. Why? Is it because you cannot understand they are all negotiated at some point? Considering recent violations of this good sense there is your attempt to "define" what a "gnostic" might be. As I have always agreed, it might serve you and a friend of yours to define a "gnostic" one way or the other. However you are the one ignoring the wide world, not me. You are failing to note that the wide world is not able to guess your meaning of "gnostic" in any consistent manner. That is because your definition has no standards to apply. It is too vague. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 3, 2019 20:23:57 GMT
Yes you have. Would you and that bloody idiot Heeeeey STOP telling what I think? It is ridiculous, illogical and beyond stupid. Hoe could ANYONE with a grasp of the English language think that 'commonly' means everyone? The fact that you even propose that and project it onto me is just typical of your nonsense word salads, and confused logic. WTF That does not make ANY sense and is an inappropriate response to the point that you contradicted your comments about definitions. Seriously? when you are the confused and contradictory one here? More projection as well an un called for ad hom, I see. You are not following well and I'm rather certain there isn't much more a person can do to help you. I will try my best though. For a communication to be successful the sender (1) and the receiver (2) must be using the same definitions of terms. It is not necessary that anyone else in the world use the same definitions. It is not necessary that their definitions be recognized by any authority, except the two parties themselves in mutual agreement. Especially important to note in this context, it is not necessary for them to use your definition of anything. Are you with this so far? When I say that communication is only possible between parties with "commonly" understood signs I mean that parties (1) and (2) must "commonly" understand their signs. There is no goal post shifting. There is no contradiction. Admittedly I have no idea what you mean by "commonly." It is clear however that you are not getting my meaning. You clipped off the part where I went on to explain that strangers might have to negotiate definitions of terms. You fail to negotiate terms. Why? Is it because you cannot understand they are all negotiated at some point? Considering recent violations of this good sense there is your attempt to "define" what a "gnostic" might be. As I have always agreed, it might serve you and a friend of yours to define a "gnostic" one way or the other. However you are the one ignoring the wide world, not me. You are failing to note that the wide world is not able to guess your meaning of "gnostic" in any consistent manner. That is because your definition has no standards to apply. It is too vague. No, YOU are not following well. You are still being confused an contradicting yourself about definitions. YOU use definitions to suit yourself, totally ignoring the other party in the communication and when challenged you assume an arrogant position, even saying 'that you have argued with dictionaries and won'. A classic line for the poster boy of the Dunning Kruger effect, if ever I heard one. Arlon is correct against the establishment, and proud, because he is so special in his own mind. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jan 4, 2019 20:07:04 GMT
dorothy and the loose-lipped lollipop guild munchkin strike force
no sooner
had toto left his calling card
on the
last front yard
leaving munchkinland
those in the know
began to
put together a plan
as to why
there were now
four missing munchkins
with
lollipops in hand
who were nowhere to be found.
dorothy knew she
was not to be
left
wandering alone
around
this or that precipice
on her way down
to
ask one more wizard
for the
keys to a ticket out of town
so she clandestinely
cornered four of the loosest
wannabes
offering them
full grown candy coated gum drop trees
in exchange for
their
chopped off at the knees
abilities
when it came to
any strangers who possibly
might
go for her never before mentioned
virginity.
little did she
know
waving lollipops
meant
you were good to go
and so toto
had a whole new bedtime show
to watch.
and that is why in oz
no one ever
mentions the word crotch
without first
looking for a notch
on
the stick holding
that
lollipop.
sjw 01/04/19 inspired at this very moment in time by wizards one and all.
from the 'bewitched series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 6, 2019 0:36:23 GMT
I suppose we all know that truth and popular opinions are not always the same thing. Yet serious problems and confusion often arise especially lately. In politics for example popular opinions often define the truth, and so they should, but only for certain categories. Popular opinion does not matter to science, or at least it should not. What is or is not true about religion should not be determined by voters with no education in religion. Argumentum ad populum can be a "logical fallacy" but it is not always. Nevertheless it can be necessary to develop a majority amenable to scientific and religious truths. Otherwise the majority might trample scientific and religious truths under foot. My main concern is truth, first, foremost and above all. I endeavor to present it. That can include defending it. If I try to win people over to the truth it is only by the truth, not by trickery. There is a problem with the attitudes about faith. Many people here have for a long time treated faith like it is a disease. I have told the truth about this. Faith is not a disease. It can be efficient. It can save people the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. That is not the whole story though. When people of faith do not follow good leaders, their faith becomes the problem. I have told the truth about this also. This does not represent a change in my opinions. It is not a cheat to trick people into liking what I say. None of it is. It is all the simple truth without embellishment. It is important that we all be aware of all these things as we try to restore good leadership so that people of faith are the blessing they should be to society and do not become a problem again. A most difficult obstacle is that the "majority" at least at one time recently was a bad leader and did not give good direction to faithful people. They are having extreme difficulty being set on proper rails. 'Truth and ... opinions are not always the same thing' indeed; I think that is clear enough from a good number of your postings. The Christian faith is usually expressed as unchanging. Hence an idea, with all its faults, which has been tried over and over down the years. Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 6, 2019 9:44:02 GMT
I suppose we all know that truth and popular opinions are not always the same thing. Yet serious problems and confusion often arise especially lately. In politics for example popular opinions often define the truth, and so they should, but only for certain categories. Popular opinion does not matter to science, or at least it should not. What is or is not true about religion should not be determined by voters with no education in religion. Argumentum ad populum can be a "logical fallacy" but it is not always. Nevertheless it can be necessary to develop a majority amenable to scientific and religious truths. Otherwise the majority might trample scientific and religious truths under foot. My main concern is truth, first, foremost and above all. I endeavor to present it. That can include defending it. If I try to win people over to the truth it is only by the truth, not by trickery. There is a problem with the attitudes about faith. Many people here have for a long time treated faith like it is a disease. I have told the truth about this. Faith is not a disease. It can be efficient. It can save people the time, resources and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. That is not the whole story though. When people of faith do not follow good leaders, their faith becomes the problem. I have told the truth about this also. This does not represent a change in my opinions. It is not a cheat to trick people into liking what I say. None of it is. It is all the simple truth without embellishment. It is important that we all be aware of all these things as we try to restore good leadership so that people of faith are the blessing they should be to society and do not become a problem again. A most difficult obstacle is that the "majority" at least at one time recently was a bad leader and did not give good direction to faithful people. They are having extreme difficulty being set on proper rails. 'Truth and ... opinions are not always the same thing' indeed; I think that is clear enough from a good number of your postings. The Christian faith is usually expressed as unchanging. Hence an idea, with all its faults, which has been tried over and over down the years. Just sayin'. I agree that faith might get derailed. I think it is derailed now almost as bad as ever. I would disagree that it is necessarily far off track, if off track at all. In many endeavors opinions are more important than whatever help science might be, especially religion and politics. I believe I understand and use science much better then you will give me credit. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 6, 2019 12:42:28 GMT
In many endeavors opinions are more important than whatever help science might be, especially religion and politics. You are naturally entitled to your opinion about science and politics. And religion and politics are certainly full of opinions, which sometimes is the problem. However most United States colleges and universities, it may be said, offer B.A. programs in political science. M.A. or M.A.T. and Ph.D. or Ed.D. programs are common at larger universities. The term political science is more popular in North America than elsewhere; other institutions, especially those outside the United States, see political science as part of a broader discipline of political studies, politics, or government. While political science implies use of the scientific method, political studies implies a broader approach, although the naming of degree courses does not necessarily reflect their content. If political science is essentially the branch of knowledge that deals with systems of government; the analysis of political activity and behaviour, then we can see this in operation everyday, in the papers and news. As for science and religion, science has no view on whether gods exist (for instance) since the central focus of much religion is not amenable to positive evidence or empirical disproof as you have often unwittingly shown. Science does not offer moral judgements either; nor would one expect or want it to. |
|
