draconix Posted August 23, 2011 Author Share Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) Truth is entirely relative, though, much like good and evil. You can make anything say anything so long as you twist things around the right way. While I agree that Good and Evil is subjective, I think that this is incorrect. Truth is fact, and fact is truth. People can twist truths to imply nonfactual statements, but regardless of this, nonfactual statements remain false. Some facts can change, such as the state of people's opinions. Statistics aren't twisted to say anything, because statistics are numbers. What people do though, is twist people's perception of what those statistics actually mean, which is most often, twisting nothing into something. Unrelated Edit: I wonder if the debates section should be split, a section for scientific and logical debate, and a section for people I can ignore... Edited August 23, 2011 by draconix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Unrelated Edit: I wonder if the debates section should be split, a section for scientific and logical debate, and a section for people I can ignore...Tsk, play nicely now. Just because you don't agree with the way I think doesn't mean you should be bashing me.EDIT: @Ghogiel - If you read some of my older posts in threads I actually got into, you'll find I actually argue my points quite well, with a fairly abundant amount of information which is always fact, although I have been known to take it out of context, intentionally. Edited August 24, 2011 by RZ1029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Truth is entirely relative, though, much like good and evil. You can make anything say anything so long as you twist things around the right way. While I agree that Good and Evil is subjective, I think that this is incorrect. Truth is fact, and fact is truth. People can twist truths to imply nonfactual statements, but regardless of this, nonfactual statements remain false. Some facts can change, such as the state of people's opinions. Statistics aren't twisted to say anything, because statistics are numbers. What people do though, is twist people's perception of what those statistics actually mean, which is most often, twisting nothing into something. Unrelated Edit: I wonder if the debates section should be split, a section for scientific and logical debate, and a section for people I can ignore... There is an ignore user function available. :D Statistics don't lie..... just the people that are manipulating them do. Given raw data, and pre-supposed assumptions, I can manipulate the data to back up any point you care to name. Happens all the time. Take a statistics course sometime, (college level), you will never trust stats again. Especially coming from someone with an agenda. Truth is just a matter of perspective. To most folks, Muamar Qaddafi is evil. However, to his family/supporters, he is a good guy. (for the most part.) What is the truth? Depends on who ya ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Unrelated Edit: I wonder if the debates section should be split, a section for scientific and logical debate, and a section for people I can ignore...Tsk, play nicely now. Just because you don't agree with the way I think doesn't mean you should be bashing me.EDIT: @Ghogiel - If you read some of my older posts in threads I actually got into, you'll find I actually argue my points quite well, with a fairly abundant amount of information which is always fact, although I have been known to take it out of context, intentionally. I quite agree RZ1029, on both elements of your post. I just shook my head in disbelief at the arrogance of that statement from draconix. There are a lot of people on here with whom I do not agree and who at times make me want to throw something, but that does not mean that they should be shoved off into a section where I do not have to look at their posts, for they have a right to be heard too. Hehe, intellectual arrogance is one of the things that gets to me as a matter of fact. After all I'm only a yokel with a first class degree, and being a conservative I, and people like me, cannot possibly be capable of understanding scientific or logical debate. Frankly I find the idea that those of us who have been debating for a while (decades, in some cases) need any kind of primer both absurd and insulting. It is for the staff to state what the rules for debates are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Unrelated Edit: I wonder if the debates section should be split, a section for scientific and logical debate, and a section for people I can ignore...Tsk, play nicely now. Just because you don't agree with the way I think doesn't mean you should be bashing me.EDIT: @Ghogiel - If you read some of my older posts in threads I actually got into, you'll find I actually argue my points quite well, with a fairly abundant amount of information which is always fact, although I have been known to take it out of context, intentionally. I quite agree RZ1029, on both elements of your post. I just shook my head in disbelief at the arrogance of that statement from draconix. There are a lot of people on here with whom I do not agree and who at times make me want to throw something, but that does not mean that they should be shoved off into a section where I do not have to look at their posts, for they have a right to be heard too. Hehe, intellectual arrogance is one of the things that gets to me as a matter of fact. After all I'm only a yokel with a first class degree, and being a conservative I, and people like me, cannot possibly be capable of understanding scientific or logical debate. Frankly I find the idea that those of us who have been debating for a while (decades, in some cases) need any kind of primer both absurd and insulting. It is for the staff to state what the rules for debates are.RZ109 & Ginny ,when I stop laughing with wry amusement ...then I will begin with the applause. Intellectual arrogance has been on this forum since I first found it, this is nothing new just another chapter of the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Pretty sure he meant that as a joke. I could be wrong though. Edited August 24, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 Actually I was being completely sincere when I said it was unrelated to you, RZ. I just think that there should be two sections created in the forum that would separate out the passion-filled emotional people from the people who would like to argue about things logically. It was just a musing that I didn't think warranted an entirely new post somewhere, so I just edited my most recent post in a topic that wasn't really a debate itself. And of course, I'd be ignoring the people that don't make any logical points. Which is not to say that I want to ignore people in other topics completely either. Just because someone can't debate logically is no reason for me to not listen to their opinion on topics of Oblivion or other Bethesda games. Additionally, I think that logical debates rub some people the wrong way, so no need to force them to sift through those, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Actually I was being completely sincere when I said it was unrelated to you, RZ. I just think that there should be two sections created in the forum that would separate out the passion-filled emotional people from the people who would like to argue about things logically. It was just a musing that I didn't think warranted an entirely new post somewhere, so I just edited my most recent post in a topic that wasn't really a debate itself. And of course, I'd be ignoring the people that don't make any logical points. Which is not to say that I want to ignore people in other topics completely either. Just because someone can't debate logically is no reason for me to not listen to their opinion on topics of Oblivion or other Bethesda games. Additionally, I think that logical debates rub some people the wrong way, so no need to force them to sift through those, right? And who would decide who would post where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Which is not to say that I want to ignore people in other topics completely either. Just because someone can't debate logically is no reason for me to not listen to their opinion on topics of Oblivion or other Bethesda games. Additionally, I think that logical debates rub some people the wrong way, so no need to force them to sift through those, right?I initially disagreed, but I see your point. I still disagree. It seems to be a segregation based on a certain way of thinking. Which carries scary connotation does it not? Also there is an ego issue here holding people whose logic functions might be lesser than your own, on a lower standing or privileging some how. Ultimately it doesn't make you a better human being or even more productive in what ever it is you do. Though in logical debate it helps. We all make a point now and again that is just off base or doesn't stand to reason. Let them play with the big dogs, perhaps reason will rub off. Spread the good s*** around where it is needed. Don't keep it all to yourself. Edited August 24, 2011 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 And who would decide who would post where?*shrug* I didn't really expect for that post to get so much attention, since it was half a passing idea, the other half was a halfhearted attempt at humor. But if you really wonder, I would suppose that in a perfect world people could determine for themselves where they'd rather post. In a less perfect world, people could kindly remind each other which section they are posting in. The actual original idea that I had, before my funny bone twisted it was to separate out the forum into two sections, people who believe in God, and people who don't, since we are unable to debate the topic. Essentially, every debate will come down to this big question. Soul vs no soul, objective vs subjective morality, the role of government... Basically, without the ability to debate the big question, all we're doing in the meantime is boiling down arguments to points where we come to an impasse. *shrug* but it was really just a passing idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts