The importance of objectivity

[Chibi]

Still black and white. No gray.

The white mixed with the black IS the grey. The colors are mixing. That's the whole point.

Why is there an objective truth in opinion? Why is there an objective truth if I prefer dogs over cats? Vanilla over chocolate? Why is there an objective truth what gender I feel I am?

There cannot be, because everybody has a unique perspective. My specific opinions on things, my truths, will differ from yours, and differ from anybody else on Earth, just like yours differ from anybody else. If my favorite color is Blue, that's MY truth. How can you say it's not an objective truth if it's my own?

 

[Hadoblado]

Chibi, in the yin and yang, there is no grey. There is black and white, and black within white, and white within black. But get your magnifying glass and check the pixels. No grey.

I think this analogy is doing massive work. It's worth slowing down and considering.

 

[Chibi]

Chibi, in the yin and yang, there is no grey. There is black and white, and black within white, and white within black. But get your magnifying glass and check the pixels. No grey.

I think this analogy is doing massive work. It's worth slowing down and considering.

You're right, there is no actual grey color of course, I was talking about the meaning of the symbol and grey as a metaphor. Taoists speak about how there is no one answer and how everything is part of everything else, how everything makes up the greater whole, therefore a big mix. I didn't mean there is literal grey.

Also, a big grey circle wouldn't look nearly as cool.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay but you see how your argument is weak right?

I don't mean to pick on you, it's just you can see how OT can come away from this conversation feeling vindicated right? He took the metaphor you offered and proved there was not a single shade of grey in it. Moving the goal posts after the fact isn't really fair when he's directly addressed your initial claim (and doesn't need to elaborate further to address your later claims).

You haven't demonstrated the grey. Even the quote you just offered doesn't really affirm the existence of grey. It's compatible with a world of entirely black and white (e.g. figure and backdrop making up a "whole" perception).

TBH this is the most effective arguing I've seen from OT and it's through minimal statements.

 

[Chibi]

That's a very literal sense to take yin/yang but I understand where you're coming from. It's like looking at a STOP sign and sitting there forever, because it doesn't say STOP, THEN GO. I'm joking around of course.

I'd like to hear more from OT and go from there. I provided the example of how my truths are objective to me but may not be to someone else. I feel like that's a logical way to further the discussion

 

[dr froyd]

i think language is not the same as perception, at least not in general

so it's not really about objectivity but rather people wanting to have a particular common dictionary; that's culture, not science. So what conservatives and progressives are really arguing about, is just what letters/sounds we associate with various things.

for example if person A takes "woman" to mean "having XX chromosomes" and then uses terms like "transsexual woman", "transvestite" etc for what person B simply uses "woman" but "cis-gendered woman" for the XX-chromosome case, well they don't really disagree on what they perceive with their senses (at least that's my understanding). They only disagree on which dictionary to use.

so in that sense the debate about language is meaningless, although it does have some practical consequences. For example if i say to a buddy of mine: "i talked to a woman at the bar yesterday". Depending on the narrowness of the definition of "woman" that can some pretty interesting implications - because if i talked to a XY-chromosomed woman, it might mean im gay.

 

[kuoka]

I didn't mention God for a reason. My view holds even if I am wrong about God's existence because things are either true or false. There is no yellow light for human behavior IMO. Think of how a computer works. It works through 1s and 0s. On and off. Binary. So if reality itself is either on or off, then it is always on and never off because negatives don't exist in reality.

Computers are deterministic up to a point. Doesn't this mean that any choice is correct because it had already been determined? In this interpretation there is no choice at all, each state follows from the previous one.

Physical reality is arguably not deterministic on some scales. Even computers can lose data when a bit switches from 1 to 0 through cosmic rays or quantum fluctuation and the system crashes or shows an unexpected result.

Chibi, in the yin and yang, there is no grey. There is black and white, and black within white, and white within black. But get your magnifying glass and check the pixels. No grey.

I think this analogy is doing massive work. It's worth slowing down and considering.

I just zoomed to the quark level. Reality looks really gray there on the boundary of black and white.

Due to aliasing and encoding there will frequently be gray between color values . You would have to purposefully make the image 2bit to have only 2 color values, 0 and 255.

This is after inquisition has forced all innocents to pick a side

 

[kuoka]

so in that sense the debate about language is meaningless, although it does have some practical consequences.

The debate about language is not entirely meaningless if the language is used to hurt a group, like when Cog said that trans people are malformed as his core definition. Try having a trans person agree to discuss with someone who opens with a statement that trans are malformed.

To have a rational and constructive debate the tone and language of the discussion is important to facilitate exchange of information and mutual respect. If there is no mutual respect there and the agenda is focused on belittling the opposition there is no hope to continue.

It is ironic, given that Cog talked about being objective and as objective fact he put forward that trans are malformed.

Though I agree that the interesting and important thing is to discuss the actual reality irrespective of the names used to describe that.

For example if i say to a buddy of mine: "i talked to a woman at the bar yesterday". Depending on the narrowness of the definition of "woman" that can some pretty interesting implications - because if i talked to a XY-chromosomed woman, it might mean im gay.

It's even funnier if you don't know whether the woman had XX or XY chromosomes and you are in a superposition of states, both hetero and gay.

 

[Hadoblado]

I didn't mention God for a reason. My view holds even if I am wrong about God's existence because things are either true or false. There is no yellow light for human behavior IMO. Think of how a computer works. It works through 1s and 0s. On and off. Binary. So if reality itself is either on or off, then it is always on and never off because negatives don't exist in reality.

Computers are deterministic up to a point. Doesn't this mean that any choice is correct because it had already been determined? In this interpretation there is no choice at all, each state follows from the previous one.

Physical reality is arguably not deterministic on some scales. Even computers can lose data when a bit switches from 1 to 0 through cosmic rays or quantum fluctuation and the system crashes or shows an unexpected result.

Chibi, in the yin and yang, there is no grey. There is black and white, and black within white, and white within black. But get your magnifying glass and check the pixels. No grey.

I think this analogy is doing massive work. It's worth slowing down and considering.

I just zoomed to the quark level. Reality looks really gray there on the boundary of black and white.

Due to aliasing and encoding there will frequently be gray between color values . You would have to purposefully make the image 2bit to have only 2 color values, 0 and 255.

This is after inquisition has forced all innocents to pick a side

I believe I just got dunked

Sorry OT you had me convinced! Shades of grey confirmed.

 

[Chibi]

Grey theory confirmed!!

Computers are deterministic up to a point. Doesn't this mean that any choice is correct because it had already been determined?

I was gonna say, I think OT is above all circling around saying whether or not free will exists. If I'm mistaken, oh well.

The debate about language is not entirely meaningless if the language is used to hurt a group,

Kuoka you're awesome. Also, this goes back to what Hablo was saying way earlier in the thread. Language has a lot of quirks and specifics that people here have been looking past because, in every day life, words are meaning first, definition second. It's usually very easy to interpret what someone means when they say something, even if the definition isn't 100% correct. And your meaning is becomes very clear when you start using blatantly transphobic language.

It's even funnier if you don't know whether the woman had XX or XY chromosomes and you are in a superposition of states, both hetero and gay.

Schrodinger's homo

 

[Old Things]

So when you say:

My perspective is that there is always a "correct answer" to any inquiry. Why?

You're taking into account context.

Do you also consider there to be poorly formulated inquiries? So you have the room to reject the question if there isn't a reasonable answer, or is there always an objectively correct answer?

Edit: And can there be multiple correct answers?

I admit, I have not thought about "incorrect inquiries." I wasn't thinking about it that way. The way I think about inquiries is questions about the fundamental way things work, not dependent on exactly how the question is asked, as I was thinking of inquiries that are not dependent on the person asking, but are more fundamental than the person asking. Don't know if you get what I mean or not, as I am not sure I am explaining it right.

 

[Old Things]

Sorry OT you had me convinced! Shades of grey confirmed.

I mean, a representation of the thing that is imperfect is not going to perfectly capture the concept.

 

[ZenRaiden]

How can we expect to be objective about something if people involved know nothing objective about given thing.
Ergo my guess is cog does not know anything about trans people.
He could just started with definitions, but he started with some loaded premise that made no coherent sense to me.
Don't want to attack someone who can't defend, but this 2 page thread makes no sense to me.
We need to define what we are talking about...... so far people figured out that subjective and objective is not the same thing.
Wow what a revelation.

 

[Chibi]

Yeah the original meaning of this thread got ridiculously sidetracked.

I really don't think you can come up with an answer for what a 'trans' person is without somebody disagreeing based on their own personal beliefs. We could run around in circles arguing language and semantics but in the end you're not gonna change somebody's mind about it if they're not open to consideration already.

OT thinks that some things are "incorrect". I assume he means transness is incorrect based on what I know about his political beliefs. But that really is just his own personal political opinion on the matter. There's simply no way to know if something is incorrect unless you're doing objective math. It's so complicated. That's why his statement of 1s and 0s makes no sense to me.

 

[Old Things]

Computers are deterministic up to a point. Doesn't this mean that any choice is correct because it had already been determined? In this interpretation there is no choice at all, each state follows from the previous one.

Physical reality is arguably not deterministic on some scales. Even computers can lose data when a bit switches from 1 to 0 through cosmic rays or quantum fluctuation and the system crashes or shows an unexpected result.

My PoV on this is that there is always an idea and always a perception. If our perceptions are not based on the idea of what is true, then we are functioning on a false premise. Take Quantum Mechanics, for example. It's based on perceptions of how those particles behave. So, perception is more fundamental than the physical in this manner. As such, taking hold of the ideal truth is how we not only get the best results, but also how we eliminate error and keep the universe pure. Now, none of us have pure perceptions all the time, and you could make the case that none of our perceptions are perfectly on the ideal truth. But when people get close, it changes everything. See Newton, who challenged the Schema at the time. His theory of gravity was absolutely key for our understanding of the universe, but it was not perfect. Yet, it was still good enough for it to cause a shift in how humans understand things--because it was based on an ideal truth, though not perfect, but accurate enough. In short, we don't need to do perfect things in highly complex things, as there are various degrees of how close we are to the ideal truth. But the closer we get, the closer to reality we are.

See this thread for more. While I do bring in some theological understanding in this, I could *probably* make the case without bringing God into it.

What Grok Said About My View of Free Will

I am not sharing the actual chapter from my book (which you can find [redacted]). But I am providing a summary of this whole chapter, which was written by Grok. I describe this chapter of the book I wrote as the "golden nugget" of the book. Provided to you here for free! With that out of the...

www.intpforum.com

 

[Chibi]

While I do bring in some theological understanding in this, I could *probably* make the case without bringing God into it.

I really don't think you can. The idea of "ideal truth" is inherently flawed. Truth is, in itself, subjective. My ideal truth is different from yours. That's the bottom line. In a universe with no set rules, the image of "perfection" is different for every single individual and really doesn't exist on a wholly universal level at all.

 

[Old Things]

While I do bring in some theological understanding in this, I could *probably* make the case without bringing God into it.

I really don't think you can. The idea of "ideal truth" is inherently flawed. Truth is, in itself, subjective. My ideal truth is different from yours. That's the bottom line. In a universe with no set rules, the image of "perfection" is different for every single individual and really doesn't exist on a wholly universal level at all.

I already covered this in a prior post.

Because if there is a "true for you but not for me" type of thing in the universe, then no one actually knows anything about anything. Everything would just be a matter of opinion. And sorry, but 2+2 is always going to equal 4.

You would have to demonstrate how subjective experiences differ categorically from objective ones. You have not done that yet.

 

[Chibi]

I'll reply to the other thread you made because this is a more philosophical discussion and I would like to further the original conversation in this thread

 

[Old Things]

I'll reply to the other thread you made because this is a more philosophical discussion and I would like to further the original conversation in this thread

What are you even talking about?

"The importance of objectivity" is literally the topic of the thread. We are still 100% discussing the topic of the thread.

 

[Chibi]

Sure. In that case I'll just say it here.

The notion of an "ideal truth" implies metaphysical absolutes. Because the universe is built out of chaos without rules, the idea of a "perfect" way to live from free will is inherently flawed.

The idea of achieving a true perfect way of living and thinking is impossible because of people's unique biases and biologically flawed minds.

Scientific truth is provisional, not perfect. We are constantly redefining what we know as "truth". After all, the scientific model is operates on falsifiability and reproducibility, not perfection. It assumes that all known "truths" can be revised or overthrown with new evidence. Therefore, tying free will to the alignment of "universal truth" is flawed, because truth is never final from a scientific framework.

Human perception is not a neutral channel to the truth, it's a biological product of evolution, optimized for survival - not strategy. The biological limitations to the human mind is inconsistent to the idea of free will in search of perfection.

From a metaphysical perspective, there is no "correct" way to live or a "correct" way the world works. Everything is dependent on the individual's perception of right and wrong and their unique experiences.

The idea of a "divine truth" implies a non-empirical reality that lies outside the domain of science. Free will is entirely contextual.

 

[Old Things]

The notion of an "ideal truth" implies metaphysical absolutes. Because the universe is built out of chaos without rules, the idea of a "perfect" way to live from free will is inherently flawed.

Plainly false. The universe is very orderly.

The idea of achieving a true perfect way of living and thinking is impossible because of people's unique biases and biologically flawed minds.

As I have said probably three times in this thread already, we can't achieve perfection. This in no way means there is no ideal truth.

Scientific truth is provisional, not perfect. We are constantly redefining what we know as "truth". After all, the scientific model is operates on falsifiability and reproducibility, not perfection. It assumes that all known "truths" can be revised or overthrown with new evidence. Therefore, tying free will to the alignment of "universal truth" is flawed, because truth is never final from a scientific framework.

This is just pragmatism. Scientism undercuts itself because you can't use science to say that science is a way of determining truth. You have to use a philosophical view of science to say science is what is true. If you hold to the pragmatic view of truth, then you have to be taught to reject the correspondence view of truth, which is the view we have by nature.

Human perception is not a neutral channel to the truth, it's a biological product of evolution, optimized for survival - not strategy. The biological limitations to the human mind is inconsistent to the idea of free will in search of perfection.

Then you have no reason to disagree with what I am saying based on your reasoning.

From a metaphysical perspective, there is no "correct" way to live or a "correct" way the world works. Everything is dependent on the individual's perception of right and wrong and their unique experiences.

That is plainly false. You should not have a problem with my view on the trans agenda if everything is just a matter of perception. Instead, you think I am wrong for my view. But that does not make sense from your view because, according to you, I am no more wrong than you are. As such, you should not complain about my view of the trans ideology because it's just my perspective compared to yours.

In short, subjective morality is indefensible because it only works in theory, never in practice. Because the moment you say, "It's not fair the way you treat me," you have demonstrated that objective morality exists.

 

[Chibi]

You should not have a problem with my view on the trans agenda

Well I can, because my truth is that trans people are real people. If you were out on the streets stabbing little girls every night I would think that was wrong too. I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. This all started because you said there was a "correct" choice between choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and I'm arguing that there isn't.

My whole point is that things are much more complicated than just "this is absolutely correct or this absolutely isn't correct."

It's all based on human experience and biases.

 

[Chibi]

for every response to anything, there is a correct emotion.

I'm saying that for every subjective experience, there is a correct way to interpret it and feel it, and as a result, there is a correct behavior that corresponds to this feeling or experience.

There is no yellow light for human behavior IMO. Think of how a computer works.

For any given situation, yes, there is a best color.

This is what I'm arguing against, OT

 

[Old Things]

This all started because you said there was a "correct" choice between choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and I'm arguing that there isn't.

No, you are asserting that there isn't. You are not giving a fundamental reason why there isn't a correct choice. You appeal to science as if because our knowledge of the world changes, this corresponds to what is true. But that is just the pragmatic view of Truth, not the correspondence view of truth, which is the view we have by nature.

My whole point is that things are much more complicated than just "this is absolutely correct or this absolutely isn't correct."

Again, complexity does not make things gray. It makes it harder to know what the right thing is. It does not erase that there is a correct solution to the situation.

This is what I'm arguing against, OT

And you are not doing a very good job.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The problem is that reasoning without facts is just logic and language games.
You aren't really corresponding to real world.
The world is the way it is.
Lots of people hold assumptions that they hide from others, but then act like they are logical and reasonable, but when you push them they hide their assumptions.

This key problem with people who aren't really reasoning objectively.
They reason on assumptions that they made ergo insert religion, or insert cultural war stereotypes and then they act like they are objective.
The problem is they always when pushed to reason objectively they will stop reasoning, and reasoning breaks down. Then they begin in sophistry where they use logic and language games to win the ideological war.

But there is nothing here to gain. This is not a honest discussion from get go.
Its a loaded discussion without any grounding either in objective or subjective.

And I will point out again this discussion yields no results.
Its empty of substance.

All of this here being discussed has been answered in philosophy long time ago.
The problem is people who come into these discussions are not coming to discuss they are coming to swing their own ideology around.
Otherwise why avoid facts or why avoid talking about the actual issue.
The answer is simple, - they can't win that battle. Because they don't inherently know what the eff they talking about.

 

[Old Things]

The problem is that reasoning without facts is just logic and language games.
You aren't really corresponding to real world.
The world is the way it is.
Lots of people hold assumptions that they hide from others, but then act like they are logical and reasonable, but when you push them they hide their assumptions.

This key problem with people who aren't really reasoning objectively.
They reason on assumptions that they made ergo insert religion, or insert cultural war stereotypes and then they act like they are objective.
The problem is they always when pushed to reason objectively they will stop reasoning, and reasoning breaks down. Then they begin in sophistry where they use logic and language games to win the ideological war.

But there is nothing here to gain. This is not a honest discussion from get go.
Its a loaded discussion without any grounding either in objective or subjective.

And I will point out again this discussion yields no results.
Its empty of substance.

All of this here being discussed has been answered in philosophy long time ago.
The problem is people who come into these discussions are not coming to discuss they are coming to swing their own ideology around.
Otherwise why avoid facts or why avoid talking about the actual issue.
The answer is simple, - they can't win that battle. Because they don't inherently know what the eff they talking about.

I've only appealed to reason the entire time. @Hadoblado even tried to pin my beliefs on this on my view of God, but I literally said I could be wrong about my belief in God, and what I was saying would still be true.

 

[Chibi]

And I will point out again this discussion yields no results.

That's exactly what I said. That's why I wanted to post it in the thread OT posted, but he said

What are you even talking about?

"The importance of objectivity" is literally the topic of the thread. We are still 100% discussing the topic of the thread.

So I just posted it here. I agree that this hasn't anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm stopping with this line of conversation, it's going nowhere

 

[Old Things]

So I just posted it here. I agree that this hasn't anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm stopping with this line of conversation, it's going nowhere

People usually stop responding when they are losing the argument, in my experience.

 

[Chibi]

People usually stop responding when they are losing the argument, in my experience.

I prefer strawberry ice cream anyways

 

[ZenRaiden]

I was saying would still be true.

So what is the objective here then?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Can't we just define OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE?

 

[ZenRaiden]

We need to define terms aprior to discussion not inside of discussion reverse engineering definitions based on what others said... its not how we reason, as cog said we need common language, but we actually do disagree on definitions.

 

[Old Things]

Can't we just define OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE?

The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[ZenRaiden]

OK that is a start.

But that clearly means you cannot agree with all of that. All those things aren't with agreement.

 

[ZenRaiden]

In philosophy, a subject is a being that exercises agency, undergoes conscious experiences, and is situated in relation to other things that exist outside itself; thus, a subject is any individual, person, or observer.[1] An object is any of the things observed or experienced by a subject, which may even include other beings (thus, from their own points of view: other subjects).

A simple common differentiation for subject and object is: an observer versus a thing that is observed. In certain cases involving personhood, subjects and objects can be considered interchangeable where each label is applied only from one or the other point of view. Subjects and objects are related to the philosophical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity: the existence of knowledge, ideas, or information either dependent upon a subject (subjectivity) or independent from any subject (objectivity).

How about we start with wikipedia. Can we all agree that this is true???? We don't have to by the way just point out what is wrong with definition.

 

[Chibi]

Cool definition, wikiman. I will hesitantly say I agree with that definition.

 

[fluffy]

Universalisms exist

But so too do realitivisms

Not everyone needs to like a certain favor of ice cream by default.

But everyone is effected by gravity

 

[Old Things]

Not everyone needs to like a certain favor of ice cream by default.

No one is arguing that.

 

[fluffy]

Not everyone needs to like a certain favor of ice cream by default.

No one is arguing that.

What are people trying to say to each other?

 

[Old Things]

Not everyone needs to like a certain favor of ice cream by default.

No one is arguing that.

What are people trying to say to each other?

I am saying, based on context, there is a correct choice of what flavor of ice cream to eat. This doesn't mean there is a default choice that is always correct.

 

[fluffy]

Not everyone needs to like a certain favor of ice cream by default.

No one is arguing that.

What are people trying to say to each other?

I am saying, based on context, there is a correct choice of what flavor of ice cream to eat. This doesn't mean there is a default choice that is always correct.

A universal context?

 

[Old Things]

A universal context?

A universal context based on the given situation.

 

[Old Things]

LOL.

 

[Hadoblado]

Sorry OT you had me convinced! Shades of grey confirmed.

I mean, a representation of the thing that is imperfect is not going to perfectly capture the concept.

I know, I'm playing around. If it had been your proposed metaphor, it'd be more of a blow out. It's less that you got wiped out, and more that Chibi's analogy was saved from proving the exact opposite of what they intended.

Also, I didn't try to "pin" beliefs on you. I just tried to understand you because you're being close-mouthed after saying some pretty wild things. Your initial claim was extremely bold, but it seems like it's relatively tame just phrased without concern for people's interpretation.

e.g. plenty of utilitarians would also claim there is a correct solution to the icecream problem. It would depend on who's preferences are more severe. Hedonic calculus yadiya.

I think you complicated things by defining objective truth in relation to questions at all. Reality is objective. Our interpretation of it is not. The goal of truth-seeking is to overlap the two as much as possible. This feels like a much simpler position to hold without all the complications of poorly phrased questions and competing answers.

 

[Old Things]

Sorry OT you had me convinced! Shades of grey confirmed.

I mean, a representation of the thing that is imperfect is not going to perfectly capture the concept.

I know, I'm playing around. If it had been your proposed metaphor, it'd be more of a blow out. It's less that you got wiped out, and more that Chibi's analogy was saved from proving the exact opposite of what they intended.

Also, I didn't try to "pin" beliefs on you. I just tried to understand you because you're being close-mouthed after saying some pretty wild things. Your initial claim was extremely bold, but it seems like it's relatively tame just phrased without concern for people's interpretation.

e.g. plenty of utilitarians would also claim there is a correct solution to the icecream problem. It would depend on who's preferences are more severe. Hedonic calculus yadiya.

I think you complicated things by defining objective truth in relation to questions at all. Reality is objective. Our interpretation of it is not. The goal of truth-seeking is to overlap the two as much as possible. This feels like a much simpler position to hold without all the complications of poorly phrased questions and competing answers.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but I think the concept of Truth is precisely what my view is based on. There's not an "extra step" I am taking with this. If Truth = what is, then whatever corresponds best to the reality of truth is what is most correct. Of course, things are only in a way "gray" because we can't actually do what is perfect. But this doesn't mean there is not, in reality, a perfect ideal. I just ground it in something as fundamental as it gets, which is Truth = what is.

 

[ZenRaiden]

We are still just saying whole lot of nothing here.
Literally nothing said here matters to the question of truth subjectivity or objectivity.
I don't want to lead people on, or bully people into right reasoning, but please do read your own posts people, you are just playing with words and saying nothing of substance.
Not my place to criticize, but if you want to move this discussion into something more tangible instead of gibberish and fiddling with words, then you have to provide a framework at least.
Because its whole lot of claims that are flying around, and no grounding to it.

Truth is truth and?
Subjective is not objective and?
We should strive for objectivity and?
People reason differently and?
My assumptions are different then yours and?
There are shades of grey and?

....literally just saying stuff that means nothing and is out of any real context.... leads to no objective criteria. Which just means we are still not closer to reasoning proper about reality.
This all said I don't want to say what is happening is wrong, but it does betray the point of OP.

 

[Old Things]

Also, @Hadoblado,

Just to be clear, you are right that I didn't have a "sensitivity" to how I would be perceived. I almost never say something, thinking about how what I say will be interpreted. I just try to speak the truth to the best of my ability. I may try to be gentle and not a jerk in what I am saying (or at least I stick to the current discussion and don't use ad homs), but I am primarily concerned with saying what is true above anything else.

 

[Old Things]

We are still just saying whole lot of nothing here.
Literally nothing said here matters to the question of truth subjectivity or objectivity.
I don't want to lead people on, or bully people into right reasoning, but please do read your own posts people, you are just playing with words and saying nothing of substance.
Not my place to criticize, but if you want to move this discussion into something more tangible instead of gibberish and fiddling with words, then you have to provide a framework at least.
Because its whole lot of claims that are flying around, and no grounding to it.

Truth is truth and?
Subjective is not objective and?
We should strive for objectivity and?
People reason differently and?
My assumptions are different then yours and?
There are shades of grey and?

....literally just saying stuff that means nothing and is out of any real context.... leads to no objective criteria. Which just means we are still not closer to reasoning proper about reality.
This all said I don't want to say what is happening is wrong, but it does betray the point of OP.

You only say this because you are starting from a completely foreign axiom than I am. I think everything I have said has been crucial in showing how I see things.

 

[Chibi]

Reality is objective. Our interpretation of it is not

Thank you hablo for summing up what I've been trying to say in a much more concise way.

literally just saying stuff that means nothing and is out of any real context

I think everybody is dancing around bigger issues without anybody wanting to bring them up completely, ie. the "truth" of trans people existing,which is what this entire thread was based off of, and the "truth" of free will and morality in regards to sensitivities that might be polarizing, and maybe the "truth" of God's divine will if I'm reading things correctly.

I'm trying to read in between the lines with OT, and I really don't want to bring up God, but it seems like he's saying that trans people go against the divine "correctness". I think that's the context of this entire philosophical debate, we're all just dancing around avoiding these larger, real world topics.

Also OT if I'm putting your words in your mouth please correct me, I don't mean to do that if that's the case.

 

[Hadoblado]

Also, @Hadoblado,

Just to be clear, you are right that I didn't have a "sensitivity" to how I would be perceived. I almost never say something, thinking about how what I say will be interpreted. I just try to speak the truth to the best of my ability. I may try to be gentle and not a jerk in what I am saying (or at least I stick to the current discussion and don't use ad homs), but I am primarily concerned with saying what is true above anything else.

Okay, but you create massive amounts of work and confusion for anyone reading when you do this! Also, it causes frustration for you too. You thought I was trying to "pin" something on you, when all I was trying to do was clarify what at first seemed nonsensical. This is what's going to happen every time. Don't you get sick of it?

If you put this burden on people, it's little wonder so many of your conversations end up with frustration. You're attempting to communicate without communicating.