Re-read your posts.
No really, what exactly does that have to do with what Marlowe first posted and with which I've agreed?Ahhh, >NOW< you're beginning to understand.
It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with that.
So why have you posted it TWICE?
And now you're asking >ME< what it has to do with the ORIGINAL topic?
That's right, ANOTHER data point about how your limitations will convince you that you're approximating "The Truth" when you're just assembling random "facts".
His point was exactly that theories which can by their nature have absolutely nothing to do with observable reality aren't worth debating.Really? Well, that just doesn't seem to match with the discussion in Politics that started this. Something about one political party lacking the "truth" and so on.
He says that one political party doesn't have it and that it exists, but then you're agreeing with him that, since it is unverifiable, it doesn't matter.
Again, another data point showing how your beliefs filter Reality.
Now, I >REALLY< wish they would teach >THINKING< in schools now. You're just too easy to rip apart.
I haven't said anything to dispute your premise -- and BTW it is an unsupported premise[1] -- that we can't perceive all of reality.Unsupported? Well, skip back 200 years and tell me about xrays. Okay? Skip back 2000 years and tell me about viruses. Then tell me that we NOW can perceive EVERYTHING that exists. Wasn't there some quote by some patent admin about everything already being invented? Shall I put Drew's name up there, too?
But anything we can't perceive[2] isn't worth discussing because, well, we can't perceive it.Cool. And following THAT "logic", we'd STILL not know anything about xrays or viruses.
Is there something you perceive that you think I don't? Fine. Explain it in a way that I can perceive.And Drew requests that I hand him an xray. Or send him a pound of viruses.
Ummmm, Drew...... you >DO< remember that you and Marlowe are the ones saying you can approximate "The Truth" and I'm the one saying that it doesn't exist, right?
So why are you telling me >NOW< that it's the other way around?
Ahhhhhhh, I get it. That bit about "The Truth" about people FINALLY sank in, right. But you can't admit that you were wrong.
Don't worry. I won't mock you.
So, there's the premise I've layed out. Any discussion of something that can not be perceived can never be more than an intelectual exercise.I will disagree with this as a general principle. See my above comments about xrays 200 years ago.
On a more SPECIFIC topic, there is no "Truth". There is no tooth fairey. There is no tooth fairey's house. Telling me you can approximate the colour is stupid.
[1] The one advancing a hypothosis is responsible for proving it, unless you want to classify it as a premise. If it's a premise, then we're still at the point where I ask, "So what?"Allow me to answer that with a quote from Marlowe.
When Leftists ideologues say there is no real truth, the truth itself becomes politicized. But remember, truth was here first.
So you can find it and check the context:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29298|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=29298]
[2] With the senses. Your supposed refutatin of the traffic story depends on refuting the evidence of the senses.How so? If I am deaf and see a car coming at me, is there any reason to think that, just because I do not hear it, it doesn't exist? I can accept that my senses have limitiations ( I cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste xrays, but they exist) without thinking that things I see, hear, smell, feel and/or taste don't exist.
Again, the classic refutation to your example.
Because I do not believe I can perceive EVERYTHING does NOT mean that nothing exists.
Again, another data point showing that "The Truth" will NEVER be understood by people. You continue to filter my posts through your beliefs. You >THINK< you're getting closer to "The Truth" but all you're doing is gathering "facts" that support your current opinions.
