sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Thanks for the reminder, I forgot ! Hope it's as good as the class warfare one that was brilliant writing in that one.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Borders
- Thread starter stainless1911
- Start date
Thanks for the reminder, I forgot ! Hope it's as good as the class warfare one that was brilliant writing in that one.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I merely acknowledge that meaning is a subjective construct. If there is Truth or a Truth, which is what a Fact is supposed to represent, humans will never perceive it; Humans merely perceive a manifestation of truth, not the Truth. **Sorry, everything is something but not anything.
Last edited:
ManInBlack
Regular Member
You have an interesting writing style, which I've always marveled at: you seem to have an uncanny ability for using as many words as possible, in the most incomprehensible way, to say absolutely nothing.
Humans require oxygen to breathe. That is a fact. That is a truth. It is not a manifestation.
You strike me as one of those students who could write a book without ever penning a coherent thesis sentence.
()pen(arry
Regular Member
That's rather 17th century. Philosophy has progressed a bit since then. Might want to catch up.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Human do not require oxygen to breath. We could just as easily breath helium. We could also breath water. And technically, humans breathing oxygen (pure) would die just like the human who breathed pure helium or water.
Stanley
Regular Member
And yet you are wrong.
Humans need air. Try breathing just oxygen and see what happens.
The point is that you are focusing on her writing style and completely misunderstanding what she is saying.
While there are basic facts we all know, much of what you feel and know is just a shade of the truth. Like the oxygen...
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Fuuny you would state this since most of the writers of the Constitution were philosophers, and were born around the 17th century. Those philosophers didn't seem to be philosophizing wrong; or were they?
"Progress" is subjective. One man's 'progress' is another man's 'regress'.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Stanley
Regular Member
Air without oxygen is no longer air...
My point is not to ridicule you. There's plenty I don't know or am wrong about .
The point is that we operate on shades of truth and when someone claims to know a truth it should automatically be suspect.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That may be, but by claiming that the empirical does not exist, or alternatively that the empirical is opinion, she has denied the basic, agreed-upon meaning of words.
The relative "truth" of empirical data may questionable, but that does not render it "opinion". Words mean things. Unless you're B92FSL. Then the "truth" of words' meaning is unknowable. Hence, nothing means anything; hence everything is anything.
QED.
Last edited:
Stanley
Regular Member
That may be, but by claiming that the empirical does not exist, or alternatively that the empirical is opinion, she has denied the basic, agreed-upon meaning of words.
The relative "truth" of empirical data may questionable, but that does not render it "opinion". Words mean things. Unless you're B92FSL. Then the "truth" of words' meaning is unknowable. Hence, nothing means anything; hence everything is anything.
QED.
Not necessarily. Scientists have long recognized that observation, experimentation and experience, which are the 3 parts that make up "empirically acquired data" are biased by prior beliefs.
So eh... Still a shade. But I take your point lol.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
That may be, but by claiming that the empirical does not exist, or alternatively that the empirical is opinion, she has denied the basic, agreed-upon meaning of words.
The relative "truth" of empirical data may questionable, but that does not render it "opinion". Words mean things. Unless you're B92FSL. Then the "truth" of words' meaning is unknowable. Hence, nothing means anything; hence everything is anything.
QED.
Words have no Fundamental meaning; they are a construct. I should point out that you have acknowledged in your post, highlighted in red, that words are a construct.
Empirical; Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
I did not claim that Empirical does not exist. Empirical is an opinion: Opinion; A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"View...formed about something,"drenched with perception.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Obviously, I never claimed otherwise.
I'd point out that the agreed-upon meaning of words is an excellent example of empirical data. But we've already establishes you don't believe in the empirical.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
(1) I agree, it is a good example.
(2) All I stated about the Empirical is that it is an opinion, not that Empirical does not exist. I reject the premise that Empirical is Truth; it is a truth--one could state: Empirical is an aspiration to Truth. Kind of like an object (theoretically) can never reach the speed of light; the object, for infinity, will get closer and closer to the speed of light, never reaching it. (I am surely opening up some more cans of worms.)
Last edited:
Lord Sega
Regular Member
Lord Sega said:
Wow Tawnos, you took my two sentences that I was using to show that I am familiar with the immigration "system", that I explained is messed up and needs to be streamlined (changed legally), but needs to be followed to keep out undesirables (ie criminals ... those who already have a record in their home country, like Russian mobsters, or South American cartel druggies, NOT poor looking for a better life).
Look here to see just how much we can help the poor of the world through LEGAL Immigration: Link
Did I say I was "raped by the system"? No, I willingly paid the money and more importantly the almost 2 years of separation from my then future wife, because I loved her and her daughter. BUT, I did not enjoy enduring the separation, which is why I said the system needs to be fixed & streamlined, get the job done faster while still keeping out proven thieves/rapists/murderers.
I love all types of people and their cultures, America is not so much a "melting pot" where everyone merges to sameness, but more like a "bowl of mixed nuts", different but together... America is built on a foundation of principles (Constitutional rights) that bring us together as one while allowing us to keep our uniqueness.
But again, see the link above, we cannot solve the world's problems by opening our boarders wide and letting in everyone who wants a better life. That would, in a matter of a generation or two, lower the USA to worse conditions than Mexico or other 3rd world countries. If you want to help these desperate people, we need to help them, enable them, encourage them to fix their own countries. Improve their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in their homeland wherever it may be.
Lord Sega said:
I say this, because Mexico should not be complaining or trying to influence our immigration laws when theirs are worse.
Mexico needs to stop b*tching at the USA and clean up their own house so that their good citizens would want to stay there.
And a final note Tawnos, I do not believe that we should kick every illegal out, mostly because that would be an impossible task. If someone is already here, and they have shown that they are "law-abiding" hard working folk, then get them documented (and preferably citizenship) and let them stay. BUT, if the have a police record or break the law (serious offenses, not J-walking or speeding tickets Tawnos), then after serving their time in jail, deport them and make any attempt to return a serious penalty. America does not need to import criminals, we have enough "home-grown" as it is.
Well, I hope I've answered your emotional tirade there Tawnos. These are of course just my personal thoughts & opinions. Please try not to read into them and twist them like you did my previous post. I think I made them fairly straight forward and easily understandable, even for you.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I never said the empirical was truth. I said it is, by definition, not opinion.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
OMG, I never said that you said that LOL. Empirical is an opinion, though. Of course, the conclusion can be derived from a scientific method but that is merely a version of truth.
Can we agree that the U.S. has established borders?--because I believe that the U.S. does.
Can we agree that there are two types of border crossing: Legal and not-Legal? There is nothing in-between, at least not that I can think of.
We can share a version of two truths, how does that sound?
Let's break it down like a fraction:
"I never said
the empirical
was truth.
I said
it is,
by definition,
not opinion."
I never said that you said Empirical was or is Truth.
If it is by definition not an opinion, then what is the alternative?
You stated that you did not state Empirical was Truth but do you believe that it is, by definition?; sorry, do you believe that Empirical is a means to a end, which is to say a avenue (via scientific method) of manifesting a truth, or the Truth?
If Empirical is not Truth, and Empirical by definition is not Opinion, what is it?
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
Roy Beck isn't exactly an unbiased source or operating on anything recognizable as the truth. His stuff is primarily concerned with reducing immigration, especially of those dirty brown folk (e.g. his association with white supremacists).
More importantly, and less ad-hominem, the arguments he makes don't stand up to scrutiny. I particularly like this blog's take, because it hits one of the most important points: comparing capitalism and communism. To wit:
"The answer, says NumbersUSA, is to stop illegal immigration entirely and cut legal immigration from an estimated 1 million people per year to a more "reasonable" 250,000 per year.
This almost makes sense if, like communists, you view the economy as a pie which we all must share. Each new person then, means a smaller slice of the pie for the rest of us, but we know from economists and from practical experience that this is not so. Capitalist economies expand to meet the needs of those participating in it. "
No, I said you were raped by the system, because that's the experience you described. Holy shiat, 30k to bring people into the country legally? That's insane! How about the quotas, though? I agree on keeping out the convicted felons and insane, but should that really take 30k+? Should there really be quotas on the non-felonious people who desire to move here? I say no.
And two of those principles are freedom to travel and freedom of association - rights denied by current immigration policies.
And again, the link above is bullshiat. There is no evidence that such would happen, and the empirical evidence from when America had open borders to all comers shows that "NumbersUSA" is plain wrong.
Moreover, we in America hold certain things to be fundamental rights of humans, coming before the whims of government. Pointing out that other governments have acted to deny its people their rights does not bolster your case. In fact, if we follow the logic of our heritage, we would welcome those who struggle to escape such countries. I remind you of the statue of liberty's quote: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." What happened that so many have abandoned that, here?
Last edited:
GhostOfJefferson
Regular Member
That's a simple restatement of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I reade Plato, years ago. I might have reade Plato's Allegory, I'm not sure.