I think this is a stereotype and prejudice, not an actual reality.
— Philosophim

Please keep our hormonal differences in mind. — Athena

Oh, I'm responding specifically to Sushi. My issue is there was no science given to focus on, so it was going to descend into sexist opinions. I am very aware of many provable sex differences, hormones being one of the least important differences.

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way.
— Philosophim

Yes, and thank goodness for the difference. — Athena

To me it doesn't matter that there is difference, only acknowledging and observing there is based on scientific facts, not culture or feelings.

You cannot be a good philosopher and be married to any one party.
— Philosophim

What if you start a party? — I like sushi

Sure. I'll have some alcohol, coffee, and sparkling water. There will be multi player video games, a karaoke machine in the corner, and a few board games. I just won't marry it. :)

Yeah, that's pretty cool. Thanks!

I'm back from vacation and willing to continue the conversation. You of course don't have to continue if you feel this is old. Also, don't use my name in examples at my expense going forward. I don't find it funny or indicative of a person who's taking the conversation seriously, and will withdraw from further discussion if it happens again. If you use an example, neutral parties keep it focused on the discussion instead of the people discussing.

Lets continue from your definitions of facts and truth.

I'd say that "a fact is a statement that can be proven or verified through evidence or data, while truth is a more abstract concept that is subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives." — Ecurb

You linked to a site which contradicts itself. Notice in the chart it places truth under objective, than later claims its subjective. Even at the bottom it states "Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts". So I'm going to dismiss this.

To be clear, we can state that something is a fact and true that is not true. The difference as I've noted is a fact deals with knowledge, while truth remains despite knowledge. It was a fact that Pluto was a planet, it is now a fact that it is not. What remains true is that there is something that existed then and now that we have facts about. Truth is the primacy of unquestionable and unchangeable reality. We can change facts about things that are true, we cannot change what is true, because what is true is what exists.

You've chosen the most negative definition of "manipulative" -- which, in my previous post - I noted. — Ecurb

Yes, because that is the term that I'm using. So if you're going to argue against the term that I'm using, you have to understand the context and definition of the term as I'm using it. Which is fine, I provided it. You can propose to expand upon the definition, but if I'm noting, "No, this is what I meant," then to engage in what is being discussed you'll need to address the definition being used, not another one.

Since its been a while, I'm going to sum the context of the original point I was making.

Trying to repurpose words for one's own benefit is a pretty common tactic among the manipulative. Its when a person takes the emotional and cultural connotation of the word, then repurposes it for their own advantage. "Truth" has the feeling of "Certainty that cannot be wrong." "My opinion" or "My viewpoint" has the connotation "I could be wrong." My truth implies "I hold a truth that is beyond your criticism or the possibility of being wrong." — Philosophim

Now lets refer to your examples.

Given these examples, it is clear that using "manipulative language" is not wicked ipso facto. — Ecurb

Nothing is. What is good and evil is all about context. I'm assuming you're referring to a response I had to Questioner.

But if they're trying to speak a subjective viewpoint that twists language to their own ends, its being manipulative. I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do...You cannot be a manipulative person and be good. It infects your mind as a poison, twists your emotions into hate, and utterly ruins otherwise good people. — Philosophim

First, this is a statement of context with Questioner. We are having a discussion on a philosophy board. No one is holding anyone at gunpoint. The goal of communication between good parties is to use accurate language to convey concepts as clearly as possible, then let them respond to that understanding. When you begin to use manipulative language, you distort language clarity for your own purposes. The only reason you would do this is because you fear that if the other person has a clear understanding of the picture, they won't give you what you want, or you'll have to admit that what you hold isn't correct.

I find this to be evil. It is selfish, a misuse of intelligence, and the break of trust and open communication that people need to have a clear eye about concepts. Now, in a different context, one where both parties are not attempting to clearly communicate with respect and freedom, do things change? Of course. Stabbing another person because they disagree with you is usually wrong, but if the other person who's disagreeing with you is about to murder people and there is nothing else you can do to stop it, stabbing them first is good. Of course, this requires a clear instance of what is good and evil to make such a call, and 'deciding' "That person is evil, I'm going to stab them," without careful justification leads to the stabber being the evil one.

So the context I am noting is that in a polite and non-coersive conversation between two people, using manipulative language to get what you want when the other person would not give you what you want if you used clear language, is wrong.

My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues.
— Philosophim

Biased opinion. — I like sushi

The exact opposite actually. Questioner is along the right path by pointing out actual science.

Assume there is something, small but just significant enough, if you think biology is separate from psychology. — I like sushi

But that's just biased speculation. I don't see that as good philosophy when the answer is clear that we need objective research to truly judge. Its in the same vein of, "We assume women are born to work in the kitchen and make sandwiches for men, what it be like if they could not be in the kitchen but still had that innate biological drive to make a man a sandwich?"

If you are not interested in participating no problem. — I like sushi

My participation is pointing out that this is not a reasonable topic to discuss and can only rely on prejudice and sexism if it continues. I'll leave it at that.

Yet, even at the most synced up level of communication... we are still always disconnected from each other.
— Christoffer

Not to sound like a broken record, if you remember what that is, but I don’t experience it that way. — T_Clark

I agree with T-clark. I'm very similar. When I chat with another person I often have a self-made image of another person there. When I read another person's words I have a 'voice' for them. And I do the same for myself when I read. I attempt to talk to another person, not have some intermediary do it for me.

A person's words often convey in my opinion, a less filtered chain of thought and expression. Anonymity allows people to say things in more direct ways, and text requires this for clear communication. So while your 'text' self may be a more direct and less filtered version of you, it is you in some expression if you with the social constraints/assists of non-verbal interactions and voice removed.

I don’t think this is true for me. I’m a very verbal person, so pretty much I am what I say—or write. — T_Clark

I'm also this way.

I am not saying these drives define either men or women only that they are part of our collective biological features not merely social constructs. — I like sushi

Ok, so you believe there is some innate biological drive in adult males and females to act a particular way.

To what extent do you agree that the basic roles of men and women are as follows.
1) Men provide for and protect women.
2) Women provide babies and protect them. — I like sushi

I think this is a stereotype and prejudice, not an actual reality. I know a women in my life who provides for and protects her man. She's a psychologist who makes all the money in the house while he's a stay at home 'entrepreneur' who hasn't started even one business in the 7 years they've been together. I've known of at least two women who've abandoned their kids when I was growing up.

But this judgement is anecdotal. Biological sex expectations cannot be determined by pop-psychology or philosophy. It can only be determined by good science. That means lots of studies that take bias into account, study cross culture outcomes, and are repeated despite looking for different outcomes.

If you want to talk about the social biases or expectations and whether society should have them, that's more a conversation which can be discussed here.

Hi Gmak. Well, a philosopher is a not a politician. In fact, a good philosopher should probably be as apolitical as possible as political thought is often about following a very generic set of beliefs to get people to follow and make change. Philosophy is about thinking carefully and questioning assumptions. That means questioning every party line that is fed to you.

Here's a bit of evidence of the distorting nature of being political.

"Studies of Republicans and Democrats, as well as Trump voters and non-Trump voters, found that people with opposing political views don’t simply see issues like income inequality through different lenses, those beliefs distort their basic understanding of the issues themselves even though accurate information is readily available..."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/study-finds-political-bias-skews-perceptions-of-verifiable-fact/#:~:text=Studies%20of%20Republicans%20and%20Democrats%2C%20as%20well%20as,candidate%3B%20and%20Stefanie%20Stantcheva%2C%20a%20professor%20of%20economics.

Pre-determined beliefs and a need for fitting into a group for change often involve forgoing critical thinking. I have discussed at length and challenged ideas that both political parties hold as sacrosanct, and often they are often defended emotionally and through one-sided 'studies' of questionable merit. Because the goal of being political is to win at any cost and 'critical thinking' that would interfere with the idea is shunned and often attacked.

"First and foremost, Republicans and Democrats tend to seek out very different news sources so they often get very different information. But even within those sources, the information that’s received is understood differently based on variables like a person’s education or life experiences, how much they trust the messenger or principals involved, their prior beliefs about a given issue, and other ideas they associate with an issue."

Translated above, "Group think and cultural bias." Much like "Your religion is where you were raised in the world," your politics often are influenced in the same way. Critical thinking teaches us to stretch outside of our personal preconceptions, biases and backgrounds. Often of course we aren't aware of our own bias, but practice in critical thinking will often reveal it to us if we honestly stick with it.

“How much you’re going to change your belief as a function of that information is going to depend on the weight you put on it, and that weight will depend on what you already think,” she said. “Without interruption, it’s just a cycle that will reinforce itself.”

A good philosopher constantly tries to break personal and group biases. You cannot be a good philosopher and be married to any one party.

We cannot ask what created something that has always existed as it has no origin for which to ask about. If something’s always existed then it didn’t need creating — kindred

And if something was not created also has no origin. It simply is explained by the fact it exists. It's not different at all.

Since there’s something rather than nothing, nothing is impossible to exist if that makes sense. — kindred

There is plenty of nothing. It's simply the absence of something. You haven't quite yet presented a reason why something always existing is somehow more plausible than something simply forming existing without prior explanation. They are still at their core have the same unprovable base.

Again, Im not countering your plausibilty that something has always existed. But you cannot discount the plausibility that something exists without prior cause and hold onto an eternal existence while discounting a non-eternal one.

I agree, though, that no warning was necessary, although I appreciate Jamal (and Javi) for recognizing that my clearly fictional hypotheticals were on point. Besides, look at the discussion they've engendered! It's more interesting (philosophically?) than "manipulative language", or whatever it was we were discussing. — Ecurb

Ah, good to see you Ecurb. I wanted you to have a chance to give your view point. I had nothing against your arguments, just your approach. I had been working overtime for the last few weeks in anticipation of my current vacation, and did not want to deal with what appeared to get personal from my point of view. Most of the time, I don't mind, but my time and tolerance were in short supply at that point.

As I mentioned, I'll check the thread when Im back. If you would like, we can continue. If momentum and interest have wained on your end, I won't continue it and I'll see you in another thread.

Is that so? — LuckyR

Please read the OP.

This needs further discussion. I don't think the existence of objective morality, warrants the conclusion that existence itself is good — L'éléphant

This is a continuation of another post of mine where I prove that if an objective morality exists, existence must be good as a basis. Im on my phone and can't track it for a link, so take a look.

I would also not have liked it if he used your name either in such examples. Ecurb and I have spoken many times, and it's clear to me he does not like me. Which is fine if the conversation stays somewhat on track.

I read his examples, rolled my eyes, and saw that this was starting to get personal, so withdrew.
His point to the example being a joke was disingenuous. So I called him out on it. My greater question to you is if that deserved a warning from a moderator explicitly about me. I used no harsh language, was trying to withdraw from the conversation, but did not let a common bullying tactic of it being, "Just a joke" slide. Even if someone else thought it was just a joke, no one would think it in good taste for fostering communication. My issue is with the one sidedness of the warning when I think it was clear Ecurb was not being polite at that point.

Do you think the warning to only me was justified? Me being called thin skinned by Ecurb wasn't philosophically on point either, and while I do agree that conversation had gone off rails at that point, I do not believe that was due only to me.

On the other hand you have to scientifically or metaphysically demonstrate how something can come from nothing … which to me seems impossible — kindred

First, not something coming from nothing, something which wasn't there, then is. Untreated without cause. What created something which has always existed? Nothing. It's untreated without cause. Which means what I am positing is just as likely and scientifically proven as your idea.

Because intelligent arguments can be made for either choice, that is it doesn't matter much, morally. — LuckyR

The correct choice is saving the five if existence is good. The mistake is thinking that this very specific scenario caries over into another context. Moral instances can not be easily abstracted to other instances. Its like saying "Because 2+2=4, 2+3 = 6" Change any part of the example, and its no longer the same equation.

The trolly problem is useful to put a simplified and very narrow question to eliminate other variables and focus on very small things. Human choice, whether you believe not pulling the switch is a choice, and the value of lives. Why its solved here is because 5 deaths vs 1 death is a simple abstract to solve. Your feelings vs the lives of 4 other people is irrelevant existence wise.

Spontaneously appeared? Not possible… it would have been from something. How can something come from nothing please explain. — kindred

How can nothing always exist? Doesn't that mean it spontaneously always was? How is your idea any different in plausibility than mine?

I have no qualms with the idea of an eternal or divine being, but logically you can't have qualms with something spontaneously appearing either if that's the case.

Not a feeling argument.
But there is a moral actor -- me. I am part of the scenario. Why can't I decide? — L'éléphant

I didn't say you couldn't decide. My question is whether your feelings are worth the lives of four other people.

The corollary to it is, what if it was my child that I had to kill?
What if my child was one of the five? — L'éléphant

Then this is a different scenario. The trolley problem is very specific. Its people you don't know. There is no implicit value or benefit to you in particular. For example, there is nothing stating, "The one person the track will give you a billion dollars if you save them." I think this is the major mistake of most moral arguments. They do not carry easily over from one context to another. I will be glad to visit those other contexts, but lets address this one first.

Something cannot come from nothing, it’s just impossible logically and physically. If so then something (the whole universe) did not have a starting point in time for existence meaning it has always existed. — kindred

Or its possible that something spontaneously appeared. Not 'caused by nothing' but simply began. Seems equally as plausible as something always existing.

The question then is whether the same logic can apply to intelligence. Is it possible to get intelligence from non-intelligence. — kindred

We know this is true. Just like life came from non-life, life evolved to be ever more intelligent until we reach human kind.

But could we really claim that during this universes existence that life really developed for the first time 4.5 billion years ago ? How would we know that during the eternal existence that it had not appeared before ? And if it had appeared before would it not have attained divine status ? — kindred

All of these suppositions are fine, but are they any more likely or reasonable than other suppositions which do not involve a divine eternally pre-existing intelligence?

I have answered this dilemma before. So, another look at it is good. I still answer, not to switch the track even if it means saving five people. Sacrifice of one life in order to save other lives is never, to me, a sound moral choice. The reason being that I would intentionally kill one person. So I am agreeing with — L'éléphant

Then what you are saying is having five people die and you feel better about is better than reducing the deaths to one person but you feel about about it? I see this as more of a feelings argument than moral calculation.

Killing some individuals in order to save a number of people is never a good moral foundation. — L'éléphant

We have to be very careful on the exact context here. We have a very specific scenario here where people are going to die no matter what we do. Do we reduce it to one death, or keep it at five deaths? Its important that we do not extrapolate beyond that scenario. In a different scenario, killing someone may not be the moral option.

Lets examine your different scenario, "Sacrifice one child to avoid a God's wrath." First of all, is there certainty and proof that this God and their wrath exist? Can anyone speak with this God and negotiate? If they can't speak with them, how do they know they want a sacrifice? One decision in one moral scenario does not translate 1 to 1 to another moral scenario.

Yes a pre-existing intelligence would face the same evolutionary challenge as the current one, however if one posits an eternal intelligence that is uncaused then infinite regress would be avoided because then one could no longer ask what created that prior intelligence as that one had always been. — kindred

That's not a reason for it existing however. And you're creating a scenario which seems impossible. A living being that has always existed. Isn't that just a concept and nothing grounded in experience?

This prior uncaused intelligence would be divine in nature or god which would have provided the initial spark for the current life / intelligence to emerge. — kindred

Why would it be divine? We would have no indicator of why it created intelligence that exists today. No indicator that it even had any special powers. It might simply be an intelligence that used technology to create today's life.

You may be interested in reading my paper here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning I cover a lot of the questions I'm noting here.

Seems a tad overblown. But in the future just say "I don't understand the point of your response. Please explain it to me in a more (or less?) detailed way." instead of going back and forth like it's a schoolyard conversation or as if we were in a chatroom from 2005. That's frowned upon here. Outside of the Lounge or Shoutbox. Hey, gotta have standards. — Outlander

Fair. My problem is that I was warned and Ecurb was defended as if his approach to posts were reasonable and supported here. My issue is the one sided warning. I agree, the conversation was getting out of hand. I take issue with the idea that I was the sole problem in this conversation and Ecurb's example usage was entirely reasonable and polite.

You seem to disagree on the definition and implications of what constitutes (or otherwise the particular presence or prominence of) "manipulative language." — Outlander

Which is fine. People do not have to agree with me. I disagreed with the way the tone was going.

This is what we call "going off on a tangent" or basically perusing a unique argument (that sure was spawned from the main one) to the point it detracts from the main OP (or in some cases the current "zeitgeist" everyone else seems to be discussing, which is not always immediately evident, particularly for those short on time who like to join in at the last moment and reply to a particular objection without digesting the entirety of the discussion first). I've been guilty of this at least a few times. — Outlander

I also agree. I was trying to end it. But I'm also going to defend against belittlement.

I would suggest if you want to have a conversation on manipulative language, it's implications, what warrants such, etc. a separate topic be made. Not passive-aggressively, no naming names, just separate, well-thought out, yet to the point. — Outlander

No disagreement here either. That was not the warning however. It was targeted at me implying that I was the sole issue in this discussion, and that Ecurb was polite.

The one thing I've learned here is if you and especially just one poster aren't making any particular headway, make one final post asking for an explanation, and if it's not to your liking, assume either a misunderstanding in communication (or perhaps a lack of ability on the other person's part) and be done with it. — Outlander

True. I did attempt this here:

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. I'm getting ready to leave town, so this isn't really worth my time. I'll check the thread when I get back and see if anything is worth addressing then. — Philosophim

Thank you for your weigh in Outlander.

A little humor can liven it up. — Ecurb

Did you really try to bully, then when you were called out on it say, "I was just joking bro?" The worst people are those who are convinced they can do no wrong. A little self-awareness is good if you don't want to be one of those people.

Look, I would be more willing to take your points seriously if you were to take mine. I've asked very clearly for you to look at the example I've given about not being able to fly with our mind alone. You're just stuck on your own desired outcome in this discussion as most people who are obsessed with subjectivity being everything are. I'm heading out of town for a week so I think its a good time to end this on my side.

Your answer confirms my latest conclusion
contradiction between wanting to be objective and at the same time deciding to ignore our involvement in our subjectivity.
— Angelo Cannata
All that you wrote ignores our involvement in our subjectivity. — Angelo Cannata

You are confusing subjectivity with being a subject. I am not ignoring that we are subjects. I am also not ignoring our subjectivity as I clearly pointed out it exists. I am simply pointing out the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Both have a subject.

Well, we can define words however we want to, as long as we agree. — Ecurb

If we are ignoring the context of the English language and doing whatever we want. And further, we don't agree.

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. I'm getting ready to leave town, so this isn't really worth my time. I'll check the thread when I get back and see if anything is worth addressing then.

I disagree that the lives saved by the robbers don't count in evaluating morality. — L'éléphant

To be clear, I separated intention and outcomes. We consider both in moral evaluations. So while normally we do punish intentions, if the outcome ends up being good enough through sheer accident, we generally do not punish the individual as harshly or at all for that one incident. But we will not encourage the same intent again and warn them if they act in such a manner again, they will be dealt with next time.

Wrong. The subtle distinction is that "Pluto exists" is a fact; "Pluto is a planet" was a "truth", but no longer is. The description "planet" is an interpretation of the facts. — Ecurb

All you did was reverse the definitions I gave you on the terms. Let me explain it another way. A fact deals with knowledge. What you know is not necessarily the truth. What is true exists whether you know it or not. A fact cannot exist if no one knows about it. Truth does.

"Manipulate" means "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skillful manner — Ecurb

You are manipulating this context right now. I said 'manipulative language'.

manipulative - especially : serving or intended to control or influence others in a deceptive and often unfair or selfish way
a clever and manipulative child
manipulative behavior
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulative

How you are using the phrase "manipulative language" remains a mystery. — Ecurb

Only to someone who does not understand basic English or context.

But influencing and even controlling people through clever speech or writing seems the goal of a great deal of speech and writing. What's wrong with that? — Ecurb

You're blending two different concepts together into one question. Influencing is the act of trying to convince someone of an idea or action. You can influence someone in a positive or negative way. The term influence alone has no negative connotation. Being manipulative is an attempt to deceive someone into doing something they would not want to do if they saw through your deception.

Controlling is an act of asserting your will to do something another person would not want to do if free. To be controlling, you must have some type of threat that the other person would be more concerned about than their own freedom. This generally has a negative connotation among free and equal people, as it is a means of asserting a power dynamic that is not concerned with the other person's choice.

Aren't you trying (unsuccessfully) to influence people by posting here? — Ecurb

Yes, but the influence is not being done with manipulation or coerrssion. It is an appeal to rational thought. No one has to think rationally. You are free to get drunk and spout off that we're all controlled by little green men named Steve. You are free to use irrational arguments or even to initiate disrespectful language towards a person because you have insufficient experience in rational thinking yourself.

You make your own decisions about what I say. There is no knife, no clever twisting of language to trick you. Just me pointing at the moon and saying, "That's the moon". Maybe its not the moon. Maybe you think its something else. But whether you agree with me or not, I approach you as an equal and will speak with you like a person who can think and make good points until you prove to me that you cannot.

Speaking of "honestly". In the recent years, this adverb has become something of a filler word, frequently used in contexts where it makes no other sense to use it than as a filler word; but it's also used in what seems like a deliberately offensive manner. — baker

Its hard to judge what is deliberately offensive. Regardless, offensive or not, if someone is being honest they are not using manipulative language. A person who was not being honest, but twisting the word 'honest' to imply they were, would be using manipulative language.

↪Philosophim Sure, acts with bad intentions can accidentally have good outcomes. I guess we agree that they are still bad? Likewise, acts with good intentions can accidentally have bad outcomes. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Correct, but this is often left to 'chance'. Lets say that I intend to throw a ball. 99% of the time, I will. 1% of the time I won't. If you intend poor outcomes, you will succeed more often in creating poor outcomes than when you are intending good outcomes. Thus the process of intention, which is an actionable approach, can be found positive or negative because we want to encourage trying for good things over negative things.

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective. — Ecurb

Incorrect. A fact is something tested and understood within a language. "Pluto is a planet." Years later..."Pluto is no longer a planet". Both are facts.

Truth is "What is". Whether we classify Pluto as a rock, a planet, or dust ball, 'it' is still exists.

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". — Ecurb

Give an example please so I know what you mean by 'manipulative'. I've given a clear example of manipulative language. How exactly is the teacher using manipulative language? Same with your other examples. They're so general nothing specific can be gleaned without further details from you.

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language — Ecurb

Instead of asking me, demonstrate you understood what I meant in my example of manipulative language. Then if you think what I've stated by 'clear evil' is manipulative, demonstrate why.

I missed the previous discussion, so apologies if I'm saying something out of context. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Not a worry! That's the great thing about the forums, long time limits on replies. :)

For me it is solved, but more complicated. What is my intention in throwing the switch? It must be to save the five, not to kill the one. Killing the one must be a foreseen, but not intended, consequence. If I'm intending to kill the one, then it is murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

It can be simplified slightly by separating two things. Intentions, and outcomes. Lets take a bank robbery for example.

A person attempts to rob a bank for money. While holding up the teller, they don't realize that there was a bomb about to go off outside that would have killed lots of people leaving the bank. Ultimately, the outcome of their stopped robbery was that they saved lives, but their intention was still a harm.

Intention is more about consistency under the law. While a bad intention can sometimes result in a good outcome, that is mostly accidental. Bad intentions acted upon often result in poor outcomes. So we don't gamble necessarily on outcomes and punish active intentions despite what those intentions bring.

Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone.
— Philosophim

i disagree. — Questioner

You are free to disagree. Disagreement alone does not mean you are correct or have captured the truth adequately. That's my point. A strong emotional belief or insistence about something doesn't make it so. What is, is, whether we like it, believe in it, or not.

In your rush to push forward that only the objective matters, you forget the person. — Questioner

Where did I say only 'the objective' mattered? Where have I forgotten the person when my point about manipulative language was all about a person?

I do not forget the person. — Questioner

You seem to have ignored a lot of what I stated, put things in my mouth I did not say, and have not provided much but personal emotional disagreement. I think you're only thinking about your own ideas in this conversation and have forgotten about me. :)

Can two competing beliefs both be right? — Joshs

If they are competing? No. Competing beliefs mean that they are at odds. Meaning if one is correct, the other is incorrect.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the topic or my point on manipulative language.

We both know I was alluding to your insistence that transgender persons are "sexist" because they choose to live in the gender that their brains tell them they are — Questioner

I wasn't thinking that at all. I'm talking about this conversation here.

Nothing, not all the scientific evidence to the contrary, could shake you from that position. You held it as a sacred truth. — Questioner

Incorrect. If the science demonstrates a new position, I go with that. You're getting wildly off topic here.

So don't you start lecturing me. — Questioner

Present clear arguments on point with the current thread you're in, and I won't.

My point is that if a truth is true to the subject, it is indeed a subjective truth. — Questioner

If a subjective point is true, then it is the truth. Truth it what simply is, despite what we may think it is. Truth is not 'mine' or 'yours'. Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone. There is no "My truth". I've already mentioned a few posts up why its disingenuous and harmful language. Feel free to address the points I've already made.

Especially when you don't like what they're saying.

So, you see, it's you imposing your subjective truth — Questioner

You can't possibly think that's going to convince me or anything else of anything. The only one you're trying to convince is yourself.

You know, I was deep into Christianity growing up. I had all the answers. I shaped the language to get what I wanted. And I remember being angry at the people that denied God or my belief system. And I remember with shock one day that I, a supposedly good and rational Christian, had to really open myself up to the idea that I could be wrong.

I understand what its like to have a conviction in something that feels like its too precious to let go. I stopped, because I realized that if I was to be a good person, I had to be open to the fact that I didn't want to be tied to the wrong conviction. Defending an unworthy conviction isn't good, its destructive to yourself and others around you. I want you to think about your interactions with me in holding your conviction. Are you being the best person and conversationalist that you can be, or are you struggling with the emotional weight and purpose of something that might be wrong, and thus resorting to less than stellar behavior and arguments?

I say this because I think you're a good person. But anyone can get trapped in that. Not having the answer right now also doesn't mean you won't have it later. But please don't resort to conversation tactics like you just did. We cannot be thinking of only ourself when we converse, but the other person's points and arguments as well.

It looks like you consider what you call "reality" the ultimate word that establishes how things are. How is that you consider this idea of yours the ultimate word? — Angelo Cannata

Very simple. Can a person fly with their mind alone?

Why should we conclude that this experience is the ultimate word, since it is inevitably interpreted by our brain? — Angelo Cannata

Because we are unable to despite all types of testing and subjective viewpoints, generate a situation where a person can fly by their mind alone, or even think of a scientific scenario where it would be possible. Reality is that which is impossible to deny by consequence. Meaning I can believe it, but reality demonstrate that belief can never be realized in practice.

It seems to me that we humans are not ultimate beings, we are so limited, so mortal, including our ideas, so how can we think that any idea of ours, particularly such concepts as reality, objectivity, truth, can contain anything ultimate? — Angelo Cannata

I have another one for you. Do you discretely experience? Meaning, in all your entirety of being, can you part and parcel things? Can you see more than black and white, but recognize individual letters, words, etc? That's the ability to discretely experience. An objective truth that you have.

You seemed to consider my understanding of you like a definitive strong point, but I don't think that any human being in this world is able to guarantee that I or you have understood each other, or even themselves. — Angelo Cannata

Sure. Its easy to make the mistake that "Because there are things I can't view objectively, that means nothing exists objectively." I'm not saying we don't have circumstances that objectivity is impossible. There are. But that does not mean objectivity is impossible.

I’d be interested in your thoughts about what I posted earlier, re: the Eastern concept of shradda – a concept for which we don’t have an equivalent word in the English language. — Questioner

Use whatever words you want. Having a dear belief does not make it true. Nor does it excuse manipulating language to describe a situation. I may believe with all of my heart that something exists, that does not make it so. That is a child's viewpoint of the world.

If you are using language to imply that what is objectively not true, is true, you're using manipulative language. Humanity loves to rationalize and shape language to fit a belief system instead of using language as a clear and accurate representative of reality from which to rationally come to a correct conclusion. This is nothing new.

That is what philosophy is supposed to teach us. To separate our convictions and beliefs from rational thought. 2+2=4, and no amount of belief, want, desire, or anger will change that. It is not someone's 'truth' that 2+2=5. Manipulative language puts one above the idea that their belief can be wrong. If you cannot honestly say, "My belief could be wrong, I will fairly consider it," then like a child, you will lie, ignore anything which would counter that belief, and go to the manipulation of language to dodge accountability. It is irresponsible, childish, and makes the world a worse place.

Its a person using language to manipulate
— Philosophim

You really need to shrug off this sense of victimization. — Questioner

How does this imply victimization? If a person is being manipulative with language it doesn't mean I personally am being manipulated.

I am sure when people speak their truth, they are not thinking about you. — Questioner

This is just ignoring the discussion and insisting on using manipulative language. When people are speaking on their subjective view point, of course they don't have to think about me. But if they're trying to speak a subjective viewpoint that twists language to their own ends, its being manipulative. I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do. And your response being completely unintelligent and lacking is one of the reasons why. You cannot be a manipulative person and be good. It infects your mind as a poison, twists your emotions into hate, and utterly ruins otherwise good people.

It is an undeniable reality despite one's personal subjectivity.
— Philosophim
I don't think it is humanly possible to say something like this. — Angelo Cannata

And yet I did, and you understood what I was intending. Did you think on my example of someone trying to fly with their own mind?

This means that the very concept of objectivity is very relative, always related to someone thinking about it — Angelo Cannata

This doesn't at all address the points I made. I gave you a clear example in which our subjective viewpoint on the subject does not matter.