The Offending Posts Commentary Thread

GSG said:
Got Hulu? There's a whole documentary about people who protest and are fighting a legal battle to "save" Britney Spears from her father and his conservatorship he has over her. It's nuts
Click to expand...




I don't care about Britney but it is kind of f#&%ed up that can happen to someone. Especially when it's been this long and she's 40. At that point, if you're a multi millionaire and want to do dumb/crazy stuff, who tf cares?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GSG said:
It was pretty interesting to watch only because those people are completely insane
Click to expand...
Yeah it was actually a pretty good doc. Her life is pretty messed up, and the fact that she can't have control over her finances is insane.

 
JJ Husker said:
Can we dispel with this notion that there are “versions” of truth? There are things that are true and there are things that are false. Full stop. There are also things that may be gray area and not proven one way or the other but there are not versions of the truth. However there are people who believe things that are patently false to be true and vice versa. But once again that is not a version of the truth, that is just people being wrong.

:boxosoap
Click to expand...


No.  Well, you can if you like.  I won't be doing that.

Perception is reality.  It's why people are so adamant about dying on hills that other people find blatantly false.  Hell, even President Biden himself has said it "We believe in truth over facts".  So does thst mean facts are more true than trtuth?  Actually I'm not sure about this one to be honest....

Point is this.  Version's of truth exist because perspective exists.  Saying there is flat out one truth and only people who don't believe it are just stupid ignores perspective.  Truth is written by those in power, by those who are allowed to write history.

In essence, just because I don't agree that AOC cutting a pro wrestling level promo on her PTSD trauma of January 6th is completely factual doesn't make me wrong.  It makes me obviously a lot less inclined to eat the heaping helping of bulls#!t I'm being served, but some people actually enjoy eating that meal because thinking objectively might hurt their head too much.

Politicians are puppets and con men, simping for them is f#&%ing disgusting.

 
Redux said:
No.  Well, you can if you like.  I won't be doing that.

Perception is reality.  It's why people are so adamant about dying on hills that other people find blatantly false.  Hell, even President Biden himself has said it "We believe in truth over facts".  So does thst mean facts are more true than trtuth?  Actually I'm not sure about this one to be honest....

Point is this.  Version's of truth exist because perspective exists.  Saying there is flat out one truth and only people who don't believe it are just stupid ignores perspective.  Truth is written by those in power, by those who are allowed to write history.

In essence, just because I don't agree that AOC cutting a pro wrestling level promo on her PTSD trauma of January 6th is completely factual doesn't make me wrong.  It makes me obviously a lot less inclined to eat the heaping helping of bulls#!t I'm being served, but some people actually enjoy eating that meal because thinking objectively might hurt their head too much.

Politicians are puppets and con men, simping for them is f#&%ing disgusting.
Click to expand...
Obviously people use their perspective to determine what they believe to be true. So in that respect, yes there are versions of truth. But my point was that no amount of perspective or bias can change what is actually true or factual. Facts aren’t fluid. They don’t change with perspective.

The danger and warning sign is when people’s versions and perspective put them at ever increasing odds with actual facts.

 
JJ Husker said:
Obviously people use their perspective to determine what they believe to be true. So in that respect, yes there are versions of truth. But my point was that no amount of perspective or bias can change what is actually true or factual. Facts aren’t fluid. They don’t change with perspective.

The danger and warning sign is when people’s versions and perspective put them at ever increasing odds with actual facts.
Click to expand...


Yes, they absolutely do.

Say 3 people witness a murder.  1 sees it as self defense, 1 sees it as homicide and the other sees it as inadvertent.  The truth is what?

 
Redux said:
Yes, they absolutely do.

Say 3 people witness a murder.  1 sees it as self defense, 1 sees it as homicide and the other sees it as inadvertent.  The truth is what?
Click to expand...
We don’t know what the truth is based on the accounts of 3 witnesses. Those are opinions and perspectives. None of them are necessarily the truth.

Facts don’t change or they wouldn’t be facts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
We don’t know what the truth is based on the accounts of 3 witnesses. Those are opinions and perspectives. None of them are necessarily the truth.

Facts don’t change or they wouldn’t be facts.
Click to expand...
I think I see what you're trying to say overall here, but you're arguing it in a somewhat misleading way (no offense). Truth and fact are two very different things, facts being indisputable and based on empirical evidence, truths including facts and beliefs.

So, when you say "...my point was that no amount of perspective or bias can change what is actually true or factual," that's really not a fair thing to say based on the definitions and common applications of the terms. Truths and facts are inequivalent to one another.

Using @Redux's example, all three of those witnesses will believe something to be a truth based on what they saw. But, that doesn't necessarily mean their truth is factual or even based on the facts. So, there are versions of truth, and then there is something called absolute truth which is usually used in a court of law. One of those witnesses would likely have an absolutely truth and I think that's what you're probably trying to point out or discuss.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux said:
It was a fact that the Earth is flat

Until it wasn't 
Click to expand...
Ehh... it was a theory and/or conceptual fact. Now, it's an empirical fact that the earth is round.

Yay science!

(Flat earthers are actually a great example of the dynamic between truths and facts. They believe it to be true that world is flat, and they try to use cherry-picked facts and observations to support that. However, empirically speaking, we know the earth is round.)

 
Enhance said:
I think I see what you're trying to say overall here, but you're arguing it in a somewhat misleading way (no offense). Truth and fact are two very different things, facts being indisputable and based on empirical evidence, truths including facts and beliefs.

So, when you say "...my point was that no amount of perspective or bias can change what is actually true or factual," that's really not a fair thing to say based on the definitions and common applications of the terms. Truths and facts are inequivalent to one another.

Using @Redux's example, all three of those witnesses will believe something to be a truth based on what they saw. But, that doesn't necessarily mean their truth is factual or even based on the facts. So, there are versions of truth, and then there is something called absolute truth which is usually used in a court of law. One of those witnesses would likely have an absolutely truth and I think that's what you're probably trying to point out or discuss.
Click to expand...
There I go being clear as mud again  :lol:

But yes, what I am saying is that empirical facts don’t change or they wouldn’t be an actual fact.

Whereas Redux said facts do change based on perspective. His flat earth is the perfect example of that. Just because people believe something to be a fact does not elevate that something to empirical fact. No matter how limited their science was or how widespread the belief, those people were in fact wrong.

So, in effect, my original statement that there are not versions of the truth was wrong. My bad. What I should've said is there are not versions of empirical facts. And if there are, some of them have to be incorrect. What a person believes  has little to do with it.

 
<rant>

I know common parlance has changed the meaning of "fact" to be something true, but it really means something that could (theoretically) be proven - so it's either true or false even if we can't yet prove it. For example, the statement "God exists" is a fact even though it could be true or false and we don't know. The entire field of science was created because we can't always know facts were true or false, so science is an empirical process of weighing the evidence to make a determination.

</rant>

 
Back
Top