Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jipehog]

Truth is relative.

No.

How do you define 'truth'?

[hector13]

Truth is relative.

No.

How do you define 'truth'?

Actuality.

[Quarque]

How do you define 'truth'?

How about this definition: "awfully inconvenient for Putin".

The message you are spreading is exactly the message of Russian propaganda. You think a war is a war? You think your brother dying in Ukraine for stupid reasons is bad? Well guess what, truth is relative, you can't really trust anything you see, hear or think. Guess you'd better leave thinking to Putin.

[King Zultan]

I don't get the point he's trying to make, also why is he arguing about this whole truth thing?

[Magmacube_tr]

The concept of truth is meaningless in this large of a scope.

We ought to base our understanding of events on observable reality. It is cold and detached, but it is the only viable way I see us getting a complete picture.

[jipehog]

Truth is relative.

No.

How do you define 'truth'?

Actuality.

The actuality is that what we regard as true vary greatly between individuals and society as whole. You can easily see it socio-economic context, legal frameworks (the law isn't fair and impartial that younger selves like to believe but social construct balancing many parameters), politics (e.g. USA elections voice the contrast between people truth and beliefs), and moral values on anything from abortion, capital crime, asthenia to rules of engagement, international affairs etc.

Mind you just because truth depends on many parameters and context, doesn't mean that every single conceptual idea is as valid as any other and there are many ideals that are universally shared and we all strive to, however, circumstances dictate available paths forward.

I don't get the point he's trying to make, also why is he arguing about this whole truth thing?

To be honest, I don't remember. I was irked by few righteous comments some days ago and there was nothing more interesting to talk about, but then... I got distracted and later in hurry to close the tab didn't notice the two words.

Regardless, it is good thing to remember, and is as universal concept as far as I am concerned wither we talk about Russia\China\USA\Whatever. There are people that have trouble with such ideas or have an emotional response to them as they perceive it as justification, craving black and white clarity and certainty.

[Strongpoint]

The actuality is that what we regard as true vary greatly between individuals and society as whole. You can easily see it socio-economic context, legal frameworks (the law isn't fair and impartial that younger selves like to believe but social construct balancing many parameters), politics (e.g. USA elections voice the contrast between people truth and beliefs), and moral values on anything from abortion, capital crime, asthenia to rules of engagement, international affairs etc.

Earth is rotating around the Sun

Show me how this truth is relative. How it depends on moral values or socio-economic context

[McTraveller]

That's part of the problem - people incorrectly assume that moral and social relativism extends to all statements which can be evaluated for veracity.

Spoiler: pedantry (click to show/hide)

Although your example isn't a good one; first Earth rotates around its own axis, not around the sun; unless you meant "the Earth rotates, around (as in nearby) the sun"  .  There are some frames of reference in which Earth revolves around the sun, but not all; the most true statement is something like "the sequence of measurements of distance and orientation between the sun and Earth with respect to a parameter called time can be described by these equations..."

[Starver]

The "rotates around the Sun" made me twitch, too, but don't forget Strongpoint has ESL, though that often makes it better than someone with it as a mother tongue[1].

Spoiler: My own analysis (click to show/hide)

The Earth rotates (most easily shown by setting up and observing a Foucault's pendulum), and also orbits around (the common barycentre of!) the Sun. As supported by various such derived details in combination with other observable/calculable measurements (that the distant stars can be shown to be essentially fixed[2]), parellax-proven distances, the more mathematically sound elipsoid orbital definitions[4] of 'local' objects (having common barycentric locii) and the practical experience of sending our own objects into interplanatary space (and, at least tentatively, beyond).

There are always increasingly finer details (the need to account for both forms of relativity in Mercury's orbit, for example, and complications like precession and gravitational resonances) but these are minor instantaneous components. To remove all sense of Earth's orbit and/or rotation from the physical model either defers to an "I am standing upon the Earth and don't feel the motion" (and clearly have no interest in waiting for Foucault to string up anything) or requires a presumption of increasingly non-Euclidean extents to the local frame to explain how everything 'stationary' is actually apparently whipping around in huge (sometimes compound) arcs around our self-centred universal origin.


The devil is in the details, but we on Earth and the users of the Zog Fortress forum (being hosted on the planet Grog, in orbit around a star in the next galaxy over) could probably both agree about the vaster details of the 'universal background' and yet understand that (as I sit upon this chair in my current room and one of their users reclines against a handy sleeping-surface in their accomodation module) the screen in front of me and the semi-tactile vibratatronic output device in front of them are stationary w.r.t. to our respective selves yet dancing a complex dance of movement respective to the other (dominated mostly by the planetary rotations and the galactic translations, more so than the planetary translations and galactic rotations) if we cared to make the necessary calculations.


[1] The other day I heard a BBC journalist state that someone had 'refuted' some allegations, where they clearly had only 'denied' them (or perhaps 'repudiated') and not even obviously 'rebutted'.

[2] They do have relative motions, notable most easily for the nearest and most 'drifting' stars, but while this reveals macro-motions (of what they are doing and/or what our Sun is doing) within the galaxy[3], it still establishes a 'baseplate' which can is effectively immobile and can he used to confirm that the far more clearly kindtic daily/annual motions are real and not just entirely a mathematical construct formed of otherwise unestablished assumptions about which frame (and form) of reference we should believe.

[3] And our galaxy vs. other local ones, the local group against the more distant and expanding universe...

[4] As opposed to "crystal spheres upon crystal spheres upon crystal spheres..." that had to be assumed for the planets under prior geocentric assumptions of the structure of the world, and which multiplied the complexity in the name of 'simple and perfect circles'.

TL;DR:, it's more a fact that it does (terminology allowing) than that it doesn't, and you need to use a proven form of fine-tuning to say otherwise. You can't just declare it otherwise because it's more in tune with your chosen message.

[EuchreJack]

To be honest, I don't remember. I was irked by few righteous comments some days ago and there was nothing more interesting to talk about, but then... I got distracted and later in hurry to close the tab didn't notice the two words.

It's ok, I have certainly done that sort of thing in other threads, (generally AmeriPol).

It helps to focus on saying what you think, rather than "friendly debating" with your fellow forumites. This thread in particular exists for individuals to express their thoughts about the war in Ukraine.

And yes, we all blame Putin. That is our "bias". We're not gonna do any "critical thinking" about how anyone else is responsible, sorry.

Folks, I think we're done here. Please move your philosophical debate somewhere else. There are plenty of threads for that sort of thing. Thanks much!

[Red Diamond]

It is not strange at all.  The Ukrainian army of 2014 was not ready for any kind of resistance, it wasn't anywhere close to being a combat-ready force nor it expected that there will be any need for combat. It also had no idea whose orders to follow because of the ongoing political crisis.

But you know all of that. You are not stupid. You are just dishonest. Calling an evident fact of Russian invasion of Crimea "conspiracy theories" can be done only out of dishonesty. Whatever evidence I'll provide will be discarded just like flat-earther will discard every piece of evidence of the round earth. This is why arguing with you is pointless.

You seem to understand the actual issue, I underlined the bit of your response where you do.  The exact same situation exists BTW with the Russian army, it is also unready for combat. 

The evident fact is that there was no Russian invasion of Crimea because no land route exists between Ukraine and Russia for such an invasion to occur thing.  Any Russian invasion of Crimea would be a Normandy landings type amphibious affair, not the smooth and mostly bloodless takeover of Crimea that actual history witnesses.  It would also likely end in as humiliating and costly a defeat as was the recent invasion of Kiev. 

The little green men is a conspiracy theory.  I say that because that is a fact and it fails for the same reason that conspiracy theories usually fail; the little green men possess preternatural ability to move and conquer territory which the actual Russian forces fail to demonstrate; these are sluggish and deeply incompetent in their offensive operations.  Putin could certain do with some 'little green men' in his present war against Ukraine but unfortunately for him they are a conspiracy theorists fantasy. 

Are you sure your not the one losing the argument Red Diamond?

Of course not.  In an argument, as in a battle or a war the sides that runs away and stops fighting is the side that lost.   

My usual answer to that bullshit of "Yanukovich was removed illegally" is quoting 5th article of the Ukrainian constitution

"The people are the bearers of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine. The people exercise power directly and through bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government."

The only source of power went on the streets and told a guy to GTFO, by ignoring it he broke a fundamental part of the constitution, period.


Of course, people who view government as something sacred (like Russians) can't understand this concept.

Here we have a fine example of Western Satanism on display.  In the lies of Hollywood fantasy rebellion removes wicked tyrants from power, in historical reality rebellion is most effective against merciful, just, forgiving rulers because it is not a war but rather a game of chicken where whoever is continously able or willing to escalate wins outright.  By process of a form of 'natural selection' the result of constant rebellions in a nation is the rise of merciless tyrants because said tyrants are the hardest form of ruler to rebel against while benevolant rulers are the easiest.  Yanukavich was the latter kind of ruler, therefore he was overthrown despite having enough popular support to be elected.

Where Strongpoint did you hallucinate "The People" in Ukrainian constitution to mean "The Rebellion"?.  In a Democracy the Highest Authority is supposed to be the People's will expressed by means of an election, then it follows that anyone who rebels *against* an elected authority rebels against the People.  This applies even to authorities seperately elected by the people, for they are the representives *of* the People and not the People itself.  A Parliament cannot rebel against a seperately elected President, because the People elected the President as well; so they are therefore rebelling against the Highest Authority.  The Highest Authority is with the President and the Rebellion is with the Parliament, since the latter is disobeying the people by seeking to change the elected ruler without a scheduled election. 

This why Western Satanists are not Democrats, the former do not *actually* believe in the People ruling as an Authority over lesser authorities.  They believe in the Rebellion and will support said Rebellion even if it against the People's manifest will.  Just as Authority is sacred you see, Rebellion is diabolical, so true to their name the Western Satanists do not seek to rule but instead to render powerless all Authority so that the threat of the Rebellion can permenantly shackle all regimes whatsoever allowing them to do whatever wicked deeds they please without punishment. 

[hector13]

Just because you continue posting asinine BS doesn’t mean you’re winning.

*reads more*

A-a-are you the Chosen One? The idiot troll who brings us conspiracies so ridiculous they entertain rather than frustrate?

Tell me more if the Western Satanists. Are they paedophiles? Where does their Authority stem from if they hate it so? What of these Rebels they support? What if the Rebels rebel against their Authority (which of course doesn’t exist because authority is bad)?

[Ganondworf]

I'll do some constructive criticism, let me think for a minute.

...

... Western Satanists ...

... well, actually, no. Effort would be wasted.

[hector13]

Your username is tremendous.

[Egan_BW]

Of course not.  In an argument, as in a battle or a war the sides that runs away and stops fighting is the side that lost.   

Depends on strategic considerations. If your objective is to take and hold ground, then retreating is defeat. But if the goal is simply to inflict pain on the enemy, then performing a successful raid and then scattering before you're overwhelmed counts as a victory.

An argument has its own strategic dimension. If your goal is simply to dominate the opponent and get the last word for your own satisfaction, then persistence will reward you. But if you want to accomplish anything deeper than that you'll have to think differently. If someone's shown themselves to be saying nonsense, it doesn't really matter how much nonsense they say because the audience will soon stop listening to them. In that way, a few words can defeat many.