Extremes

[Harbringe]

There are those things which are extreme but many times there are those who use it to try and make the decision of what is extreme for you. As soon as I get a sense of that I just switch them off , its better to make up your own mind.

 

As for truth being relative.

 

Once had a friend who tried to convince me of this. So during one such debate I said " So your trying to tell me that good can be evil and vice versa and up can be down and vice versa " Yep he said its all relative to your perspective" So I reached over and grabbed him by the neck and slammed his head down on the coffee table and said down , then up , then down , very quickly the absolute nature of truth became self evident to him. My Socrates Solution.

[SimpleGlitch]

As for truth being relative.

 

Once had a friend who tried to convince me of this. So during one such debate I said " So your trying to tell me that good can be evil and vice versa and up can be down and vice versa " Yep he said its all relative to your perspective" So I reached over and grabbed him by the neck and slammed his head down on the coffee table and said down , then up , then down , very quickly the absolute nature of truth became self evident to him. My Socrates Solution.

 

I've had similar debates with some of my friends, well they didn't end so violently o_O . The problem with their debate is there are not actually arguing about the truth being relative, they are arguing their emotions on the truth.

 

To use your example, what it seems like your friend is trying to argue is that slamming his head into the table is bad or good depending on perspective. However, he is not actually talking about the truth, but how someone feels about the truth. The truth of the matter is that his head made contact with the coffee table. All else is a matter of opinion based on someones personal values.

[myrmaad]

As for truth being relative.

 

Once had a friend who tried to convince me of this. So during one such debate I said " So your trying to tell me that good can be evil and vice versa and up can be down and vice versa " Yep he said its all relative to your perspective" So I reached over and grabbed him by the neck and slammed his head down on the coffee table and said down , then up , then down , very quickly the absolute nature of truth became self evident to him. My Socrates Solution.

 

I've had similar debates with some of my friends, well they didn't end so violently o_O . The problem with their debate is there are not actually arguing about the truth being relative, they are arguing their emotions on the truth.

 

To use your example, what it seems like your friend is trying to argue is that slamming his head into the table is bad or good depending on perspective. However, he is not actually talking about the truth, but how someone feels about the truth. The truth of the matter is that his head made contact with the coffee table. All else is a matter of opinion based on someones personal values.

 

I liked Harbringe's solution, but here you go "convoluting" again.

 

No, not "all else is a matter of opinion based on someones personal values" http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c117/SeaBlossom/icons/bs.gif

 

The grass is not green simply because we perceive it to be so. It has physical properties that allow us to perceive it so. Some grass is not green, true, but generally grass is green. And that is the truth.

[sukeban]

@myrmaad + Aurielius

 

Saying that something is "extreme" might be used subjectively, but it most definitely does not make it objectively true. If this person attempts to export their own subjective view of extremism to the objective realm of empiricism and fact--they are lying to you.

 

But we can clearly see this in play with the example that myrmaad uses, that of Richard Nixon. In 1968, Nixon was viewed as conservative. He had just become buddy-buddy with the rising star Ronald Reagan (after defeating him in the primaries) and was making his spiel about America's "silent majority" that was displeased with the perceived liberal political overreach (and cultural transformation) of the Kennedy-Johnson years. He wanted to track back to the right, and he did. He was solidly "conservative" on foreign policy, but he was not an ideologue. He, of course, opened the door to China--the first President ever to do this. He was okay with talking to his enemies, of making diplomatic deals if it ended in mutual advantage. He tried to end the Vietnam war by winning it, but when that failed, he fell back and made the best with what he had. He was pragmatic. He was realistic. He also assassinated Salvador Allende. So he was tempered by an ideology (postwar American conservatism), but he was not blindly so.

 

Fast-forward to today, and I am beyond sure that Nixon would have no place in the Republican party. Compare his (moderate, in this context) governing record with the present tenor of the Republican primary debate. Indeed, can you imagine any of the modern Republican candidates ever proposing or signing the SALT I or ABM treaties? Obama signed a nuclear armaments reduction treaty with Russia (2010) and was lambasted by the Republican party, many of the Presidential hopefuls among them, for compromising America's security. Nixon also used executive price-controls in an attempt to curb inflation; can you imagine the howls of "socialism" if Obama ever made such a move--they would be deafening. Nixon also created the EPA and OSHA and signed the Clean Air Act. Where, in this Republican moonscape of "drill, baby, drill" is there a place for the EPA? Nixon also desegregated (at least on a large scale) the public education system, instituted Affirmative Action, and went on record supporting the women's Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Suffice it to say, none of these actions would be supported by the present-day Republican party.

 

In my estimation, Nixon was a good Republican president.

 

So what happened? The Republican party changed. Conservatism may or may not have followed suit.

 

We are all aware of the modern positions of the Republican Party, no need to cover them again here. Compared with Nixon or, for an even greater moment of clarity, contrasted with Eisenhower, you can see very easily where the party has headed. And that has been FAR to the right. I wouldn't necessarily say that the party is swimming in "extremist" waters just quite yet, but if the party continues its present trajectory, it will be there soon enough. What is indisputable is that the party has lurched to the right. Very far to the right. One watershed moment in this transformation was Reagan. Another was W. Bush. Another is happening now (post-Obama). You can only travel so far to the right before you knock up against the border of "extreme." And when we get there, you can be sure that Republican commentators will do their best to stake that border as the new "moderate" in our political spectrum. But I would say, just remember where we have been (Nixon, Eisenhower) and you will see where we are going.

[myrmaad]

(Beautifully stated, kudos given.)

 

In my estimation, Nixon was a good Republican president.

 

Agreed, but even this moderate approach to conservatism earned us blowback, Salvator Allende was assassinated on September 11, 1974.

 

I must add that a part of the lurch to the right was to put distance between Clinton and the Republicans. Clinton was a Moderate, whose policies regularly amped any true leftist. I could throttle him, myself, but it explains his mass appeal, and why Obama seems to attempt to emulate his moderate stance.

 

It has not escaped me that "Socialism" as a catchphrase, is the new "Communism" -

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Is_this_tomorrow.jpg/225px-Is_this_tomorrow.jpg

[Aurielius]

It is so droll to see a philosophical discussion revert to a partisan political one, with the attendant catch phrases being trotted out on queue...sigh.

[myrmaad]

Since when was the intent of this thread meant to be a philosophical discussion though? I submit the Opening Post clearly sets up the politics.

 

I misunderstood your post to be obfuscating the question, until I just went back and looked at it, (it crossed my inbox in plain text, and seeing it just now in color changed my perception of your intent a bit.)

 

The trouble I had, and still have with setting it up philosophically is that I view that as stealthily devious. We are not discussing the mysteries of perception: Green grass looks black in a dark night.

 

We are discussing (in my view) how people can take a truth and obfuscate it to make something else appear true-- grass is green and even if you perceive it as black when there is no light, it has not changed its property --or truth-- of being green.

 

But you can easily convince someone uneducated in the properties of light and color to the contrary.

 

Edit.

Because it's you, Aurelius, I'm going to flesh this out a bit more.

 

On a personal level if I have a disagreement regarding the truth of a matter with you, my friend, then it is respectful of me to acknowledge the truth that you are sincere in your beliefs. It is also respectful of me to acknowledge you feel you know the truth of a matter. At this point we may agree to disagree.

 

But suppose this was the eve of the Supreme Court decision which overturned Florida's sovereign authority to count its own votes.

 

And suppose that I said at that moment that I had enough evidence to believe we would invade Iraq under a George W. Bush presidency.

 

The truth of the matter is not an opinion. I was right and that is what happened.

 

That is a fact.

 

Now anyone can say they believe we did not invade Iraq. But that would be erroneous, and the truth of our invasion of Iraq is certainly not subjective opinion.

[SilverDNA]

America and real extremes!

Yes Myrmaad I agree all that is not capitutalism must be thrown out of country... fascism, marxism, communism, socialism. What Ism next ?

For suggestion what to throw out next use this link.. (LINK)

 

Edit:

When America has finished it's self implied honey to do list please contact me. Then we debate how much freedom is left.

Edited April 4, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Aurielius]

Myr, because it's you I will respond thus: In the example of the 2000 Florida election..that is subjective because it depends if you agree or disagree with the SC ruling as valid. In the case of Iraq it is a matter of fact. However...wait for it...if you had made the Iraq comment beforehand then it would be subjective since neither you or I hold a crystal ball. Adding the caveat that it would not be subjective if either you or I held a security clearance high enough know that it was operational planning in which case, men with sun glasses and ear mics would shortly be at one of our doorsteps with some serious questions relating to the Official Secrets Act. In either case since I know you, I would accord you the respect of acquiescing that you believed in the truth of your assertion. As to my philosophical approach, it was my subjective interpretation of the question and was intentionally neutral....Fair enough? Edited April 5, 2012 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

Was it extremely neutral?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist......

 

"Extreme" is HIGHLY subjective, and all depends on the perspective of the person using the term.