Michelle Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why on Earth would you join PETA, xray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 The meaning of 'fact' depends on context. It may be a fact to us that the WTC collapsed but not to a blind person. This does not mean it didn't happen it only means it's hearsay to the blind person. So in life sometimes we are confronted with situations in which we accept as facts things we can't verify and these facts are not as "strong" as others more readily verifiable, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why on Earth would you join PETA, xray?I joined it because it is the biggest and most influential animal rights movement organization whose activities have led to many improvements in that field. Organizations like PETA and Greenpeace will always be the topic of controversy. In how far PETA is linked to radical organizations like the animal liberation front, I'll do my own research and then decide if I stay a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) The meaning of 'fact' depends on context. It may be a fact to us that the WTC collapsed but not to a blind person. This does not mean it didn't happen it only means it's hearsay to the blind person. So in life sometimes we are confronted with situations in which we accept as facts things we can't verify and these facts are not as "strong" as others more readily verifiable, for example.If you asked a blind person about this event: do you believe they would call it hearsay? I don't think so. Blind persons can use the auditory canal, so they heard news and countless reports of the event, and also this being talked over in their family, among acquaitances, etc. I don't think blind persons regard the daily news they hear as "hearsay". Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Hearsay is evidence "...not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he/she has heard others say". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Example: it is fact that on Sept Sept 11/2001, there was an attack on the Twin Towers resulting in their collapse. As for the objectiveness: countless eyewitness watched the event, plus there is film documention supporting it.Do you mean facts are subject to vote or majority rule (majority observation)? That would essentially make it subjective, not objective. A bunch of subjective is still subjective.One could go to the grounnd zero site and see for oneself that there were no more Twin Towers etc..Do you mean subjectively see for oneself? That would make it subjective, too.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Why on Earth would you join PETA, xray?I joined it because it is the biggest and most influential animal rights movement organization whose activities have led to many improvements in that field. Organizations like PETA and Greenpeace will always be the topic of controversy. In how far PETA is linked to radical organizations like the animal liberation front, I'll do my own research and then decide if I stay a member. PETA is also a radical organization in its own right that supports and condones illegal activity. It is a fairly good example of a solution that is worse than what it is trying to cure. Now, it isn't criminal on the level, say, that the Church of Scientology is (which is a terrorist organization and a threat to the civil liberties of every American), but realize you've joined a group which will use compulsion to achieve its goals. Edited June 11, 2009 by Michelle R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) I really think the issue is not objective vs. subjective, it's objectively right vs subjectively right.GS, Even if you add "right", you still remain in the subjective value domain, since what person A considers as "right", person B may vehemently object to. Wars have been fought about the "right" political system, and disagreement on the "right" faith have left (and still are leaving) in the history of mankind a bloodtrail of magnanimous proportions. I think xray is saying there is no such thing as a universally (objective) proper or right value. I'm saying that values are always a subjective choice. The act of valuing is an individual attributing value to this or that.To emphasize: "A" man, an individual, is a real, finite, volitional entity that attributes value to this or that."Man", the infinite category, existing only in mind has no objective identity. "Man" cannot and does not attribute value. The postulate "Life proper to man" treats an infinite category as if it were finite entity. And what one considers as "proper" is an entirey personal value judgement. Like e. g. "proper" behavior. We like to think we are more civilized now and mostly we think that is right and probably it will lead to man's long term survival. But questions framed in terms of 'right' and 'wrong' are too simplistic to deal with these issues - there needs to be context. Right for what and wrong for what?What can be observed is that trying to impose one's will, belief, power, on others will be met with protest and often resistance. When the resistance is greater than the imposing power, the power holders will run into difficulty. Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) This latest movement to ordain that fetuses are persons is the first step to a tyranny that is well described in Atwood's novel -A Handmaid's Tale- I have no desire to get caught up in this discussion, but I have to comment on this: I love how every time some issue like this comes up, someone refers to a dystopic story to lend legitimacy to an illegitimate slippery slope argument. "Why should we ban human cloning?" "[...] BRAVE NEW WORLD" "Isn't there a point where abortion just becomes murder?" "[...] A HANDMAID'S TALE" "What is wrong with advancing in the field of genetics?" "[...] GATTACA" It's lazy. As a whole, dystopic fiction has also become lazy. I'm tired of people taking everything to extremes to make a point. Most of the time the extremes are so, well, extreme, that the fiction stops commenting on the original issue. Edited June 11, 2009 by Michelle R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Why on Earth would you join PETA, xray?I joined it because it is the biggest and most influential animal rights movement organization whose activities have led to many improvements in that field. Organizations like PETA and Greenpeace will always be the topic of controversy. In how far PETA is linked to radical organizations like the animal liberation front, I'll do my own research and then decide if I stay a member. PETA is also a radical organization in its own right that supports and condones illegal activity. It is a fairly good example of a solution that is worse than what it is trying to cure.Now, it isn't criminal on the level, say, that the Church of Scientology is (which is a terrorist organization and a threat to the civil liberties of every American), but realize you've joined a group which will use compulsion to achieve its goals.No problem on my part to admit I may have been in error on certain facts. On the contrary, I would have to thank (in that case, Selene) for pointing it out. I don't identify with any organization/ideology/ belief to the point of defending it tooth and nail against its critics. For it is is fear of truth which usually makes people cling to beliefs, ideologies etc, the fear often being so strong that it silences the voice of doubt. But that's not me. If imo the critics have a good point, I'll leave no stone unturned trying to find out if what they say it is true (i. e. a fact), and in case it is, will rethink my position regarding the issue in question. Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) This latest movement to ordain that fetuses are persons is the first step to a tyranny that is well described in Atwood's novel -A Handmaid's Tale- I have no desire to get caught up in this discussion, but I have to comment on this: I love how every time some issue like this comes up, someone refers to a dystopic story to lend legitimacy to an illegitimate slippery slope argument. "Why should we ban human cloning?" "[...] BRAVE NEW WORLD" "Isn't there a point where abortion just becomes murder?" "[...] A HANDMAID'S TALE" "What is wrong with advancing in the field of genetics?" "[...] GATTACA" It's lazy. As a whole, dystopic fiction has also become lazy. I'm tired of people taking everything to extremes to make a point. Most of the time the extremes are so, well, extreme, that the fiction stops commenting on the original issue.The use of those extreme examples is merely an indicator of how fiercely the battle about ethical values is being waged, with people possibly having to realize that there exist no "objective" values. To many, this seems to be a threatening thought, which explains why they often vehemently reject the idea. In past times, authorities like e.g. the church told people what to believe, what was "right". The subjective value system of a group was imposed on others, and presented as "objective". Now with those former "ethical authorities" progressively losing their power, many people have the feeling of disorientation, which can make them susceptible to ideologies offering strong guidance. Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm saying that values are always a subjective choice. The act of valuing is an individual attributing value to this or that.Yes, but suppose you value arsenic as a food? The valuation is subjective but the consequences are not. From a subjective point of view it is the right choice but from an objective point of view it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) I'm saying that values are always a subjective choice. The act of valuing is an individual attributing value to this or that.Yes, but suppose you value arsenic as a food? The valuation is subjective but the consequences are not. From a subjective point of view it is the right choice but from an objective point of view it is not.The value depends on what one wants to do with with the arsenic. Someone wanting to commit suicide by ingesting it will value it.The two old ladies in the black comedy "Arsenic and Old Lace" valued arsenic as food highly too - for their victims.What is objective is the fact that arsenic has a lethal effect on humans when ingested in a certain quantity. Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 What is objective is the fact that arsenic has a lethal effect on humans when ingested in a certain quantity.Xray,Once again (and I am going by your standards), how do you know that? What makes such knowledge "objective"?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) What is objective is the fact that arsenic has a lethal effect on humans when ingested in a certain quantity.Xray,Once again (and I am going by your standards), how do you know that? What makes such knowledge "objective"?MichaelMy reading of Agatha Chrisite. ;) (Dame Agatha worked in a dispensary where she acquired substantial knowledge of poisons. ) But kidding aside - there is a lot of documented medical record on arsenic. Still waiting for your example of a "subjective" fact, Michael. Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 What is objective is the fact that arsenic has a lethal effect on humans when ingested in a certain quantity.Yes, but I said if someone valued it as food. This may be subjectively right but objectively wrong. If it was valued as poison that would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 But kidding aside - there is a lot of documented medical record on arsenic.Xray,Are the documented medical record on arsenic objective?How do you know?I'm not kidding. I am curious to know your standard.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 If I look at some grass and say "the grass appears green to me", this is a subjective fact, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 GS,I don't know until we define "fact" and "objective" properly.I do know that Xray has a notion in her head that makes her claim her observation (or a crowd's observation) of something is a fact and is objective, but if someone beside her observes whatever it is being observed differently, then that is... well... she doesn't say.I'm just trying to figure out what is "objective" in Xray-speak before I deal with "subjective."I ask her over and over, but she never answers other than repeating things that are not an answer to that question...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) But kidding aside - there is a lot of documented medical record on arsenic.Xray,Are the documented medical record on arsenic objective?How do you know?I'm not kidding. I am curious to know your standard.MichaelDocumented medical record on the effects of arsene undisputed worldwide by any scientist (who e. g. would claim arsenic not to be lethal to humans when ingested in a certain amount) - what more do you need? For a general overview, take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic"Subject to proof and disproof" btw does not mean you have to climb Mount Everest yourself to verify that it is cold up there and that the air is very thin. Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) If I look at some grass and say "the grass appears green to me", this is a subjective fact, no?No, it is a statement about a personal observation. Can't resist the pun - someone "smoking" grass may say "the grass appears purple to me". Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Do you eat the flies you kill, oh Baal Zevuv, Lord of the Flies?In der Not frisst der Teufel :devil: Fliegen.LOL!! What a pun, Dragonfly! [Translated: "In case of need, the devil will eat flies" which is the German (a bit more drastic) version of the English "Any port in a storm".] Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 No, it is a statement about a personal observation. Can't resist the pun - someone "smoking" grass may say "the grass appears purple to me". Quite right, and that would be a subjective fact to them also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 The Stalinist Communists ate the wallpaper paste during the siege of Stalingrad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 What is objective is the fact that arsenic has a lethal effect on humans when ingested in a certain quantity.Yes, but I said if someone valued it as food. This may be subjectively right but objectively wrong. If it was valued as poison that would be different.Valuing arsenic as food is a subjective choice - it is not subjectively "right". It is a personal choice based on the erroneous belief that arsenic is a food. Iti s the same as valuing one's arms as wings based on the erroroneous belief that one can fly when flailing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now