I don't even know what the discussion is about at this point. It's off topic, you seem to just be referring to me.
No, it's not off-topic. It is entirely on topic. Your lying and unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion in this thread are entirely on topic.
More to the point, if you want it to stay on the original topic then how about responding to the points made regarding the topic, which I have repeatedly asked for? Just go back to post #515, or to any of my posts before that. There were all sorts of points that I raised in regards to what was being discussed. Such as my point that by your definition “natural” rights are arbitrary. Or what I asked about the Declaration of Independence.
I have brought up many points so far in this thread that have dealt with the topic. You have simply either dodged them, or been dishonest in your responses. Which is how the issues of your behaviour became a secondary part of the topic.
1.You have been asked to provide support for your assertions.
2.You have been asked to make relevant arguments and counterarguments.
3.You have been asked to provide a logical chain of thought instead of stringing together a series of assertions that show nothing.
You have failed
to do this at every turn.
This is the problem. A conversation cannot actually take place with you because you are unwilling to converse in a meaningful or intelligent manner. All you are interested in doing is repeating the same stupidity over and over again with no better justification for it the 70th time than you had the first. This is why your dishonest behaviour has become an issue of contention. Because having to read the same written resume for village idiot repeated ad nauseum by someone who is seems to not even smart enough to form a single semi-valid point is a little tiring for all involved. Myself and some of the others would like to move along, and we're waiting to see if you're ready to come sit at the adult table with the rest of us.
If you cannot do at least the three things listed above, then you are entirely useless. You have nothing to contribute to a discussion that's more complex than two kids on the playground wondering whether Superman or Batman would win in a fight (actually even that would be above your level of complexity, it would appear).
Most of us are here looking for genuine, honest debate, and intelligent conversation. We are not typically here to listen to someone spout inane theories and ideas that they can't even keep consistent (though that can be amusing on occasion). Either you can do this or you cannot. If you cannot, then you're just here to serve as an object of mockery. Someone to amuse the forum with his funny dancing and silly hats until someone comes along who can actually form a well-reasoned thought..
What does objectivity mean then to you? I guess only you could have the true definition and understanding of it.
Don't try to be snarky, Gill. For one thing you aren't very good at it. For another, since you're the one who outright declared that he could define words however he wanted to, it's extremely hypocritical to be trying to portray me as the arrogant one for pointing out that you're using a word with a set definition the wrong way.
As a sidenote, why are you asking me what it means? Are you really that
incompetent/mentally lazy that you couldn't have just looked it up in a dictionary? Which would have been much faster and easier than waiting for me to do it.
Now that we've cleared that up. Let's move on. I'll try to use simpler words so as not to confuse you.
I already explained what objectivity meant in post #515 and explained to you why it does not mean what you are clumsily attempting to use it as. However to point it out again, in order for something to be objective it must exist as it is independant of any consciousness. For example, if killing is objectively wrong then it is wrong no matter the reason that you kill. It doesn't matter whether you agree with that, it does not matter if you killed to protect your child's life, or if you killed to prevent the deaths of all life on earth. It was still wrong of you to do that.
This is not my own personal definition. This is what the word actually means within the context of the english language. So let's go over the problems and flaws with your rather farcical definition.
[/b]1.[/b]First and foremost going back to your claim.”Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard”.
What you have just defined here is subjective. If people must agree on it then it is subjective. Again, this is what the word means. Do you see the flaw here? I'm guessing not so let me spell it out.You have not only changed the meaning of objective, you have redefined it with the definition of subjective.
Aside from the obvious stupidity of this, what then have you redefined subjective as? What about the words in the english language that are related to objective/subjective or that rely on them for their own definitions? How do we redefine them? Are you using the common definitions for those words still?
Which leads to a larger problem......2.[/b]If you can redefine words to mean whatever you want, how can we possibly communicate ideas? If you tell me that something is objective, but you've redefined objective as something entirely different from how it's commonly understood, how am I to 1)know this 2)understand what you're trying to say 3)determine the veracity of your claims 4)know that you haven't changed it just so that you claim your case is true or 5)argue against something that you have made up in your own head and exists nowhere else.
Do you note all of the problems that this presents. This is why we decided that words have certain meanings. So that we know what we are talking about when we say things like objective. If I can redefine words to mean whatever I want them to mean then I can win any argument I want simply by changing the meaning of the words I'm using. By doing such a thing you deliberately put your ideas outside of the realm of criticism and outside any burden of proof because your ideas can never be proven or shown to be wrong at this point. Rendering any discussion with you pointless because you have deliberately placed your position into a realm where it cannot be critized without agreeing to your arbitrarily decided definitions. However it also removes any possibility of your position being shown to be true, except if one already presupposes your own definitions to be right.
This leads us to.......
3. It is blatantly dishonest to change the definitions of your words so arbitrarily. For several reasons, not the least of which is that you can simply change them again to suit your argument. Going back to “Multiple people, agreeing to some universal standard, is objectivity in this context.” for a moment. For all I know you don't really adhere to this definition and just pulled it out of your ass at the last minute to try and make your point not fail as spectacularly as it clearly was.
It also obfuscates the position that you are trying to take because it makes it hard to know if you are not using different definitions for other words and not telling me. It makes everything you say murky and unclear. Which is good if you're trying to lie, but bad if you're trying to have an honest discussion. You should be focusing on making your point clearer, not cloudier.
And as mentioned above,it makes everything that you have to say lose any effective meaning to anyone who does not automatically share in your presuppositions.
So have we sufficiently covered why you can't just make up your own definitions and expect to not be treated like someone who rode the short bus to school?
As a corollary to what has been said so far. Sometimes there are grey areas in which one can argue that certain interpretations of a word can be considered to be applicable (such as with a word like “rights”) however you fail to take into account that you must have an actual reason for doing this that you can justify. Not just because you lack the ability/desire to learn what the word is supposed to mean and want to make up something else. You certainly cannot however, argue that the word means something that is in diametric opposition to it. Such as your definition of “objective”.
Give me an example of what you think is objective then, because I don't follow your reasoning.
That would be because you're not bothering to try.
This has nothing to do with lying.
Actually it has more to do with you being generally dishonest (which is not the same as just lying). However in this instance, yes you are, or you were. Or you're just incompetent, as I pointed out.
It has to do with the fact that there are different things objectivity can refer to.
None of them are applicable to how you're trying to use it.
I've taken physics, I understand what it means in that context. But that meaning doesn't apply to all contexts.
I'm guessing that when you say you've taken physics, you mean it in the same sense as when you said that you've read about philosophy. But that's neither here nor there.
First off, irrelevant. What matters is the current context.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. No version of objectivity comes close to matching with your claim.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity
Which one did you mean exactly? I mean besides the one that the woodpecker in your head is trying to tell you about?
Now, it could very well be that I'm wrong and there actually is something in what you are trying to say and it's just getting garbled.
However, this is why I keep telling you to take the time to think, support your statements, and form your words into a string of coherent thoughts that follow from your premise.
You see if you don't support anything or just post assertions/reassertions like you do, or just jump from one single or double sentence paragraphs to another it makes your position seems disjointed, uncertain, and makes it hard to take you seriously because it makes you appear profoundly unintelligent.
Gill, start with a statement or a topic. Then show the evidence you have to support it. If you can't show evidence, at least show the train of thought that led you to it. Above all else, think about what you are writing and make certain that the message is consistent with what you are trying to say, and what you have said before. Then you wouldn't have half the forum telling you that your words here are inconsistent with what you said previously. Or telling you that you're contradicting yourself. Or that you're changing your position. More importantly everyone would understand what you are trying to say.
If you're not going to actually put some effort into the things you say, please do the favour of refraining from saying it.