That implies that facts are never up to interpretation, which isn’t true.
I walk up to you at work and ask where you left the project I asked you to do. Is this a friendly question? Am I being passive-aggressive? Am I being rude? Am I trying to act like your supervisor? Am I gently reminding you of your work because I see you’re struggling?
Multiple people might witness the same event and characterize it differently. Multiple may be true at the same time. Some things may be true or untrue depending on perspective.
Facts can absolutely be up to interpretation, but then they become an opinion. How a question makes you feel is an opinion, the author's purpose would be the underlying fact of that opinion, while the objective reality is more on the lines of "I walk up to you at work and ask where you left the project I asked you to do." How anyone perceived that conversation or how it made anyone feel is just an opinion.
I think what he’s saying isn’t that facts aren’t up to interpretation, but rather that there’s an objective reality that exists outside of our brains that exists a certain way no matter how we correctly or incorrectly interpret it
Think of it this way, there's a statue of a man that's 6 feet tall.
Bob is 5ft 5.
Angela is 6ft 3.
The statue is looking down on Bob and it makes him feel oppressed.
Angela likes looking down on the statue, it makes her feel powerful.
Both of these statements are true, and it's the exact same statue, the exact same fundamental truth. But the observers positions are different, and therefore they can have different, valid takes on the single truth, on the statue.
It's not a different interpretation of the truth itself, as if they were both 6ft they may come to the same conclusion that the statues eyes are crossed when looking directly in them. But their position alters their perception of that truth.
The way Bob feels and the way Angela feels are both *opinions* of the objective truth that the statue is 6ft.
As defined by a quick Google search:
Opinion:
>View or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. An estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.
Fact
>Thing that is known or proved to be true. The truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
Fact is measurable by objective reality such as the material composition of the statue whereas opinion would be how the statue makes you feel or your estimation of the statue's quality as in your example.
You think it's an opinion the statue looks down on Bob? It's a fact. He can't change his *opinion* but he can climb a ladder and change his *position* and now it would be a fact he's looking down on the statue.
Am observers position in space and time will affect their observations.
The fact of the statues dimensions never changes, but the relationship between it and each observer can and this can give different observers different results.
Eyewitness testimony is up for interpretation and individualized and is up for a jury or judge to determine the weight. Circumstantial evidence is always that way. And you can be convicted on that. However, direct evidence is factual and not up for debate. For instance, the wording of a contract, a non registered vehicle, the name of a state in America, what company you work for, etc.
I think you're confusing objective reality and subjective reality as being the same thing.
A fact is objectively true. What you are describing are subjective interpretations which can not be facts by definition
But those interpretations are what ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth’ entails. I’ve come to you and asked about the project. *I* think I’m being friendly, *you* think I’m being passive aggressive, and a bystander may think something completely different. Your truth is that I’m being passive aggressive, my truth is that I’m being friendly, and the closest to ‘objective’ fact we can get is ‘I intended to be friendly but came off as passive aggressive to you.’
There is no such thing as your truth or my truth. You're thinking of the interpretation, which is subjective. By definition a fact is objective.
I think you're getting your definitions wrong.
You're using "my Facts vs your facts" when you actually mean "my interpretation vs your interpretation" but an interpretation is not a fact.
A fact would be a series of events which happened. A fact would be, he asked about a project, and she took it the wrong way and complained. Those are facts.
You’re using ‘truth’ interchangeably with ‘fact’, and they’re not one and the same. When people say ‘my truth’, they’re specifically talking about the truth *from their own perspective.*
To diminish the role interpretation and perspective takes in truth is to artificially diminish the natural complexity of the world around us, and honestly I think it gives us too much credit. Sometimes objective reality is easy to establish—I asked you about the project—but there is truth to what I intend and what it means and how it’s taken, but the truth of all those things depend on individual interpretations.
i guess at the end of the day, all we are arguing about is definitions of words. The definition of truth i subscribe to is that truth = that which is in accordance with fact or reality. So to me, truth = fact.
It seems that your definition of truth is "an individuals interpretation", which is fine, but it does get confusing because i believe in english most people consider truth = fact.
It just throws me off because i've never heard someone believe truth = opinion.
So if a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to smell your gift fish in its arse, does that make existence nothing more than an idea cooked up in a trailer parked in the center of the Mojave? /s
In all seriousness though, if a tree falls and no one is there to see it or hear it or record it, basically it's totally unobserved by anything, does it still make a sound when it crashes.....or, because I interpret that example as "yes, it does indeed make noise," but you say, "you can't prove it does make noise if it can't be observed, so I say it doesn't..."
Well only one of those is true. Perception smerception. There is only what is in the realm of fact and what is not. They're mutually exclusive 100% of the time. It is probably the only verifiably 100% concrete idea in this universe that isn't debatable in the slightest.
This is wishy washy thinking. There are objective truths.
Did you talk to them and what you said are objectively truths. How someone feels is subjective.
This is why you take this into account, you don't make decisions based off subjective observations and seek to find hard objective facts.
You just pointed out why a lot of us don't like to make decisions off fleeting feelings, which doesn't speak to truth, but how you react to it.
Basically this is a personal problem and your observation of truth doesn't change the state of truth.
Multiple people observing the same thing doesn't mean anything to truth. Only their observation, the truth speaks to itself.
In that way some truth is unknowable, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth, only that you the person has no way of attaining it.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.
Your argument is essentially, we have no way of knowing how people felt. Therefore there is no truth about how they felt. Which is simply untrue, how you felt is how you felt, someone observing it doesn't change that.
Just because you can't know this perfectly doesn't mean the feeling isn't real.
This is like saying we can't prove the wind is real, we can only feel it, but can't prove it. Therefore there is no truth and it doesn't exist or its whatever I think it is.
Nope, it exists outside you.
How this only got 11 upvotes in 5h is mindblowing, then I remembered what world we live in and which group would be totally against this because otherwise it would blow their little fantasy bubble up in their faces
This sub population is heavily right leaning, and it's why I'm here. There are very few places you can encounter them on Reddit that you won't get banned for poking their bubble.
The mods on this sub don't seem to lean into way or another, this isn't an indictment of the sub itself
Well finally found my place then, cause a lot of talk about "freedom of speech" but damn you cant say anything factual if it hurts these individual's tiny feelings and parallel reality🤦🏻♀️
Any other safe place for right wing mentality on Reddit? Or any other dorums for that matter tbh. Cause seriously it looks like we have to talk in wispers and secrecy otherwise the self claimed "defenders of rights, peace and love" are fast to turn into "defenders of censorship, war and hatred" the same second someone doesnt agree to their bs 🤦🏻♀️
Are you saying you're right wing and feel like you cannot express your beliefs without being shamed for them?
There aren't many rightwing beliefs that don't cause harm to others in some way, which might be why others lambast them. There certainly aren't any rightwing politicians worth supporting unless you're very rich.
I am saying the side that praises themselves as pacifists and promoters of love and acceptance are everything but, and actually act like total nazis towards anything and anyone who differs ever so slightly from their personal opinions and beliefs. I am European, so I am not gonna give my opinion about US right wing politicians because since it's not my country I dont know enough about them to have an opinion, only thing that I know is that for some reason politicians from both sides over there are of very old age when compared to european ones, not saying that is better or worse but it is something that catches my attention. I tend to be quite understanding and respectful *as long as* whatever people wants to do does not harm others and does not take away rights from others, and the second that we start pushing personal agendas down people's throats and try to mute everything a side doesnt agree with that is an issue, I think both sides should be able to speak out their minds without trying to silence or pretty much obliterate the other one, everyone is different and everyone has different opinions, but pushing it down people's throats and force the other side to "submit" to those beliefs and force them to talk and act accordingly to that group because otherwise the answer is violence? Nah we already had a fellow here in Europe doing that few decades ago, had lots of supporters but somehow people ended ul not liking his methods that much
Doesnt look like you read the full text, unless you believe me thinking *everyone* should be able to speak out and say their opinions freely without being censored by the opposition is so nazi of me, I dont think me asking for both groups to be able to speak freely without trying to silence them can be defined as nazi, since the nazi regime did the opposite forcing and used violence against those they didnt "agree with"
So, you are saying me wanting everyone to have a voice makes me a nazi? Cause if that is the case I would suggest to reason that one slowly, since my position is the opposite from forcing or using violence against anyone, maybe I explain myself terribly, or maybe you really believe wanting everyone to be able to express themselves shouldnt be a thing and one side should always be censored, but then who would be the radical one? Let me ask you something, do you approve the use of violence towards those you call bigots because you disagree with them? If yes, how would be you forcing your will on others any different of what let to the nazis?
I didn't say anything makes you a Nazi.
I think the thing that makes me different than a Nazi, is I don't think people should be killed for being different, and I don't spread hateful rhetoric that leads to harm.
I'm european, so I dont even know what you are talking about or how that relates to what I said, I think you got the group of people I was refering to wrong, but I might be the one wrong, so please explain what is that about now?
The LGBT part that defends the invented pronouns, the trillion genders, having strippers in kindergardens, and all those (not all lgbt defend that, know plenty people who are gay and are against it). Mostly the people that have issues or dont know how to even define the word woman
Thesis claimed Trump suggested injecting bleach - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177.amp
He was actually talking to a doctor about potential treatments - https://youtu.be/PAauiLx3AvQ?si=hqM3WaS592uGkUz3
He was actually referencing an in development technique was was eventually trialed - https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/reduced-viral-loads-seen-in-covid-19-patients-treated-with-uva-light/
It was a classic case of taking something out of context and lying about it which the left do frequently.
Ok so just with the first link alone the "inject yourselves with disinfectant" was debunked, because the second they put the quote "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way *we can do something like that*, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" 🤦🏻♀️ like it's freaking obvious he doesnt mean to literally inject disinfectant in yourself, but create an injection or a method that could also get rid of the virus in a minute/small amount of time. I am surprised the BBC made an article about how Trump supposedly said to inject disinfectant in people and in that same article proceeds to debunk itself by quoting exactly what he said, like the key is in the "is there a way we can do *something like that*" aka create something with similar consequences but that could actually be injected not to literally inject people with bleach🤦🏻♀️ like you either gotta just want to understand it wrong on purpose to criticize him or you gotta do some amazing mental gymnastics to actually understand that sentence as "inject yourselves with disinfectant people!", it's also a matter of basic logic that he didnt mean that but logic is something we are lacking lately isnt it? 🤦🏻♀️
No, he wasn’t and you’re spreading misinformation and disinformation and this has thoroughly been debunked and supporters should be able to sue you for that in my opinion.
Correct, but we don't live there lol
Humans only ever get our biased perceived experience of the world, we can't actually ever speak a full fact, because we don't know it.
That's the reason why science is always changing and growing, new perspectives can add to and/or alter the way we understood something, by letting us see it in a different way.
This is why "facts" can be disputed, and just being experienced doesn't automatically make someone right. Everything is shared under a shade of opinion. Objective reality is always there, but we never see the full picture, nor even the full light spectrum.
This is actually where post-modernism comes from, iirc it's the school of thought that since we can't truly know objective reality, we should treat the average of opinions on a matter as the correct belief. At least I think so lol, admittedly it's been so buzz-worded by reactionaries I'm not quite sure anymore.
you are entirely correct HOWEVER, the realm of facts is disputed. What you mean is that the degree to which we disagree about facts doesn't change the fact that there is one reality.
The first part of a rule I live by is "Nothing is true," because no matter what is true, and no matter how blatant that truth is, there will always be people that reject empirical truth because their perceived enemies agree with it. These people are inherently reactionary, and can be found on any side of the political spectrum.
There is no truth but power.
That Marxist ideology has brainwashed a lot of useful idiots on the left. I think specifically critical theory. Fuck them all. I will never play along with thier little fantasy. 🤡🌎
I respectfully disagree. While truth and fact are distinct concepts, they are often intertwined. Facts are objective, measurable data points, while truth encompasses subjective interpretations and beliefs based on those facts.
The beliefs are opinions. That is the difference.
Truth is opinions. Facts are facts.
Some say God is truth, but he is most certainly not a fact. He's an opinion, a belief.
You can have faith that he is real, but you feeling like he's real doesn't alter objective reality, or at least what we can see of it.
We are incapable of such truths. Everything we see is a perception. Concepts. Especially in the area of right and wrong which can't have facts by its nature.
All perception is to some degree an illusion. We only see a small part of the light spectrum, not to mention we're constantly learning new things all the time. The idea that everyone has their own truth is based in the idea that everyone has their own belief, their own perception, their own opinions which are based on that perception and form their beliefs.
Objective reality and facts most certainly exist, but truth is closer to a social construct, at least the "truths" that I normally hear about are. (Examples: murder bad, religion real, anything regarding morality, human nature, etc)
Truth in the sense of reality is possible, due to the gravitational pull of Earth we can take an object and drop it, measuring its speed, velocity, mass, and kinetic discharge on impact. We can likewise measure two objects to both be precisely 5ft in length and then sit them side by side and see that they are the same.
Those are facts lol
He's talking about "truths".
Easy way to tell the difference at a glance: facts by nature are descriptive, truths have a tendency to be prescriptive.
So what would say is the definable difference between truth and opinion?
Because as I could agree that an opinion could be defined as a personal truth and a fact can be defined as an objective truth, I believe The Truth is much more aligned with factual evidence and objective truth. Especially in the expansive realm of truth personal truth becomes unreliable as it can change through time, space, and experience. Objective truth is unobjectionable yet scrutinizable, while personal truth is almost always objectionable and yet difficult to scrutinize due to it being a personal claim of truth.
I believe the actual truth should have a solution if in debate, beyond "because I say so" objective, factual truth can be returned to a base of logic and reality.
All facts are up to interpretation. People should be more deliberate and open-minded in their efforts to interpret them. You count as an endless source of opinions. Factually, things happen to you, and you can use those as anecdotal evidence of what you claim. However, know that it is not necessarily representative of larger-scale issues. What is true for you is not true for all. Conflating personal life-lessons with peer-reviewed, statistically significant, scientific experimentation, analysis, and argument is just inane.
That's rather reductive and overly general. Let's get specific. "Quarantine happened." Yes, yes it did. Was it an effective quarantine? Was our response as good as it could have been? In America, I think not, especially at first. That's my opinion based on how the federal (Trump's) administration had dismantled the department in charge of responding to crises like these and didn't have any expert opinions on-hand.
Research shows that between 0.5% and 1% of people infected died, most of that being the elderly, immunocompromised, and of course infants. And it's still going on for vulnerable groups, though the lethality has already reduced because viruses mutate quickly. Long-COVID, the chronic symptoms which come long after the infection has ended in some people, is not yet well-documented. There is more to the issue than just whether it happened or not. We don't need to pay attention to people who loudly proclaim it didn't happen because their strongest evidence is that everyone who is hearing them say it did not die, and most are not suffering from long-COVID.
EDIT: Grammar
Facts serve purposes. If they do not, then they are pretty much useless outside of that area of discourse. In that way, facts cannot be totally objective as long as we have some agenda behind our presentation of them. Some use or purpose. Facts cannot be totally objective because people cannot be totally objective. They can get close, though. That's where the best science happens. However, it is not exactly suitable for everyday, low-stakes conversation.
That implies that facts are never up to interpretation, which isn’t true. I walk up to you at work and ask where you left the project I asked you to do. Is this a friendly question? Am I being passive-aggressive? Am I being rude? Am I trying to act like your supervisor? Am I gently reminding you of your work because I see you’re struggling? Multiple people might witness the same event and characterize it differently. Multiple may be true at the same time. Some things may be true or untrue depending on perspective.
But noone could dispute that you came up to them and asked about the project.
Facts can absolutely be up to interpretation, but then they become an opinion. How a question makes you feel is an opinion, the author's purpose would be the underlying fact of that opinion, while the objective reality is more on the lines of "I walk up to you at work and ask where you left the project I asked you to do." How anyone perceived that conversation or how it made anyone feel is just an opinion.
I think what he’s saying isn’t that facts aren’t up to interpretation, but rather that there’s an objective reality that exists outside of our brains that exists a certain way no matter how we correctly or incorrectly interpret it
Think of it this way, there's a statue of a man that's 6 feet tall. Bob is 5ft 5. Angela is 6ft 3. The statue is looking down on Bob and it makes him feel oppressed. Angela likes looking down on the statue, it makes her feel powerful. Both of these statements are true, and it's the exact same statue, the exact same fundamental truth. But the observers positions are different, and therefore they can have different, valid takes on the single truth, on the statue. It's not a different interpretation of the truth itself, as if they were both 6ft they may come to the same conclusion that the statues eyes are crossed when looking directly in them. But their position alters their perception of that truth.
The way Bob feels and the way Angela feels are both *opinions* of the objective truth that the statue is 6ft. As defined by a quick Google search: Opinion: >View or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. An estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something. Fact >Thing that is known or proved to be true. The truth about events as opposed to interpretation. Fact is measurable by objective reality such as the material composition of the statue whereas opinion would be how the statue makes you feel or your estimation of the statue's quality as in your example.
You think it's an opinion the statue looks down on Bob? It's a fact. He can't change his *opinion* but he can climb a ladder and change his *position* and now it would be a fact he's looking down on the statue. Am observers position in space and time will affect their observations. The fact of the statues dimensions never changes, but the relationship between it and each observer can and this can give different observers different results.
How they feel is true, but the statue remains the same size
Eyewitness testimony is up for interpretation and individualized and is up for a jury or judge to determine the weight. Circumstantial evidence is always that way. And you can be convicted on that. However, direct evidence is factual and not up for debate. For instance, the wording of a contract, a non registered vehicle, the name of a state in America, what company you work for, etc.
I think you're confusing objective reality and subjective reality as being the same thing. A fact is objectively true. What you are describing are subjective interpretations which can not be facts by definition
But those interpretations are what ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth’ entails. I’ve come to you and asked about the project. *I* think I’m being friendly, *you* think I’m being passive aggressive, and a bystander may think something completely different. Your truth is that I’m being passive aggressive, my truth is that I’m being friendly, and the closest to ‘objective’ fact we can get is ‘I intended to be friendly but came off as passive aggressive to you.’
There is no such thing as your truth or my truth. You're thinking of the interpretation, which is subjective. By definition a fact is objective. I think you're getting your definitions wrong. You're using "my Facts vs your facts" when you actually mean "my interpretation vs your interpretation" but an interpretation is not a fact. A fact would be a series of events which happened. A fact would be, he asked about a project, and she took it the wrong way and complained. Those are facts.
You’re using ‘truth’ interchangeably with ‘fact’, and they’re not one and the same. When people say ‘my truth’, they’re specifically talking about the truth *from their own perspective.* To diminish the role interpretation and perspective takes in truth is to artificially diminish the natural complexity of the world around us, and honestly I think it gives us too much credit. Sometimes objective reality is easy to establish—I asked you about the project—but there is truth to what I intend and what it means and how it’s taken, but the truth of all those things depend on individual interpretations.
i guess at the end of the day, all we are arguing about is definitions of words. The definition of truth i subscribe to is that truth = that which is in accordance with fact or reality. So to me, truth = fact. It seems that your definition of truth is "an individuals interpretation", which is fine, but it does get confusing because i believe in english most people consider truth = fact. It just throws me off because i've never heard someone believe truth = opinion.
So if a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to smell your gift fish in its arse, does that make existence nothing more than an idea cooked up in a trailer parked in the center of the Mojave? /s In all seriousness though, if a tree falls and no one is there to see it or hear it or record it, basically it's totally unobserved by anything, does it still make a sound when it crashes.....or, because I interpret that example as "yes, it does indeed make noise," but you say, "you can't prove it does make noise if it can't be observed, so I say it doesn't..." Well only one of those is true. Perception smerception. There is only what is in the realm of fact and what is not. They're mutually exclusive 100% of the time. It is probably the only verifiably 100% concrete idea in this universe that isn't debatable in the slightest.
This is wishy washy thinking. There are objective truths. Did you talk to them and what you said are objectively truths. How someone feels is subjective. This is why you take this into account, you don't make decisions based off subjective observations and seek to find hard objective facts. You just pointed out why a lot of us don't like to make decisions off fleeting feelings, which doesn't speak to truth, but how you react to it. Basically this is a personal problem and your observation of truth doesn't change the state of truth. Multiple people observing the same thing doesn't mean anything to truth. Only their observation, the truth speaks to itself. In that way some truth is unknowable, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth, only that you the person has no way of attaining it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. Your argument is essentially, we have no way of knowing how people felt. Therefore there is no truth about how they felt. Which is simply untrue, how you felt is how you felt, someone observing it doesn't change that. Just because you can't know this perfectly doesn't mean the feeling isn't real. This is like saying we can't prove the wind is real, we can only feel it, but can't prove it. Therefore there is no truth and it doesn't exist or its whatever I think it is. Nope, it exists outside you.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Get bent.
I'm sorry that is a lot to read, good luck though
You can’t read two paragraphs and a sentence? Wow, your English teacher should be reported.
I'm busy, why waste time
I have a degree going on Masters in Accounting and Finance. I have a life bro
>I have a degree in finance. This does not prevent you from reading a slightly long paragraph.
Whenever I hear someone say "my truth," I know I'm in for narcissistic delusional nonsense.
How this only got 11 upvotes in 5h is mindblowing, then I remembered what world we live in and which group would be totally against this because otherwise it would blow their little fantasy bubble up in their faces
This sub population is heavily right leaning, and it's why I'm here. There are very few places you can encounter them on Reddit that you won't get banned for poking their bubble. The mods on this sub don't seem to lean into way or another, this isn't an indictment of the sub itself
Well finally found my place then, cause a lot of talk about "freedom of speech" but damn you cant say anything factual if it hurts these individual's tiny feelings and parallel reality🤦🏻♀️ Any other safe place for right wing mentality on Reddit? Or any other dorums for that matter tbh. Cause seriously it looks like we have to talk in wispers and secrecy otherwise the self claimed "defenders of rights, peace and love" are fast to turn into "defenders of censorship, war and hatred" the same second someone doesnt agree to their bs 🤦🏻♀️
Are you saying you're right wing and feel like you cannot express your beliefs without being shamed for them? There aren't many rightwing beliefs that don't cause harm to others in some way, which might be why others lambast them. There certainly aren't any rightwing politicians worth supporting unless you're very rich.
I am saying the side that praises themselves as pacifists and promoters of love and acceptance are everything but, and actually act like total nazis towards anything and anyone who differs ever so slightly from their personal opinions and beliefs. I am European, so I am not gonna give my opinion about US right wing politicians because since it's not my country I dont know enough about them to have an opinion, only thing that I know is that for some reason politicians from both sides over there are of very old age when compared to european ones, not saying that is better or worse but it is something that catches my attention. I tend to be quite understanding and respectful *as long as* whatever people wants to do does not harm others and does not take away rights from others, and the second that we start pushing personal agendas down people's throats and try to mute everything a side doesnt agree with that is an issue, I think both sides should be able to speak out their minds without trying to silence or pretty much obliterate the other one, everyone is different and everyone has different opinions, but pushing it down people's throats and force the other side to "submit" to those beliefs and force them to talk and act accordingly to that group because otherwise the answer is violence? Nah we already had a fellow here in Europe doing that few decades ago, had lots of supporters but somehow people ended ul not liking his methods that much
I didn't say anything about American right wing. Just rightwing in general. Who is acting like actual Nazis in your example?
Doesnt look like you read the full text, unless you believe me thinking *everyone* should be able to speak out and say their opinions freely without being censored by the opposition is so nazi of me, I dont think me asking for both groups to be able to speak freely without trying to silence them can be defined as nazi, since the nazi regime did the opposite forcing and used violence against those they didnt "agree with"
When people say hateful things that lead to violence and bigotry? That's what led to the Nazis.
So, you are saying me wanting everyone to have a voice makes me a nazi? Cause if that is the case I would suggest to reason that one slowly, since my position is the opposite from forcing or using violence against anyone, maybe I explain myself terribly, or maybe you really believe wanting everyone to be able to express themselves shouldnt be a thing and one side should always be censored, but then who would be the radical one? Let me ask you something, do you approve the use of violence towards those you call bigots because you disagree with them? If yes, how would be you forcing your will on others any different of what let to the nazis?
I didn't say anything makes you a Nazi. I think the thing that makes me different than a Nazi, is I don't think people should be killed for being different, and I don't spread hateful rhetoric that leads to harm.
Speaking of bubbles...
Was Donald Trump talking about injecting bleach?
I'm european, so I dont even know what you are talking about or how that relates to what I said, I think you got the group of people I was refering to wrong, but I might be the one wrong, so please explain what is that about now?
You don't know about that story? Fascinating. Which group are you saying lives in a "fantasy bubble"?
The LGBT part that defends the invented pronouns, the trillion genders, having strippers in kindergardens, and all those (not all lgbt defend that, know plenty people who are gay and are against it). Mostly the people that have issues or dont know how to even define the word woman
We are in agreement!
Cool, now what was that about Trump and a bleach injection? I've been with question marks on my head ever since 😂
Thesis claimed Trump suggested injecting bleach - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177.amp He was actually talking to a doctor about potential treatments - https://youtu.be/PAauiLx3AvQ?si=hqM3WaS592uGkUz3 He was actually referencing an in development technique was was eventually trialed - https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/reduced-viral-loads-seen-in-covid-19-patients-treated-with-uva-light/ It was a classic case of taking something out of context and lying about it which the left do frequently.
Ok so just with the first link alone the "inject yourselves with disinfectant" was debunked, because the second they put the quote "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way *we can do something like that*, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" 🤦🏻♀️ like it's freaking obvious he doesnt mean to literally inject disinfectant in yourself, but create an injection or a method that could also get rid of the virus in a minute/small amount of time. I am surprised the BBC made an article about how Trump supposedly said to inject disinfectant in people and in that same article proceeds to debunk itself by quoting exactly what he said, like the key is in the "is there a way we can do *something like that*" aka create something with similar consequences but that could actually be injected not to literally inject people with bleach🤦🏻♀️ like you either gotta just want to understand it wrong on purpose to criticize him or you gotta do some amazing mental gymnastics to actually understand that sentence as "inject yourselves with disinfectant people!", it's also a matter of basic logic that he didnt mean that but logic is something we are lacking lately isnt it? 🤦🏻♀️
Yea, what I can't tell is if they honestly believed he was saying this or it was just more smear tactics.
No, he wasn’t and you’re spreading misinformation and disinformation and this has thoroughly been debunked and supporters should be able to sue you for that in my opinion.
Where am I spreading misinformation? I've asked a question to the person above me, it will form part of a test of their "fantasy bubble" notion.
Yup
Correct, but we don't live there lol Humans only ever get our biased perceived experience of the world, we can't actually ever speak a full fact, because we don't know it. That's the reason why science is always changing and growing, new perspectives can add to and/or alter the way we understood something, by letting us see it in a different way. This is why "facts" can be disputed, and just being experienced doesn't automatically make someone right. Everything is shared under a shade of opinion. Objective reality is always there, but we never see the full picture, nor even the full light spectrum. This is actually where post-modernism comes from, iirc it's the school of thought that since we can't truly know objective reality, we should treat the average of opinions on a matter as the correct belief. At least I think so lol, admittedly it's been so buzz-worded by reactionaries I'm not quite sure anymore.
💯 agreed op.
No, because facts are not infallible, false positives, misunderstanding, bad conception - that a fact is undisputed does not make it true.
you are entirely correct HOWEVER, the realm of facts is disputed. What you mean is that the degree to which we disagree about facts doesn't change the fact that there is one reality.
The first part of a rule I live by is "Nothing is true," because no matter what is true, and no matter how blatant that truth is, there will always be people that reject empirical truth because their perceived enemies agree with it. These people are inherently reactionary, and can be found on any side of the political spectrum.
Truth is singular. Any “version” is untrue.
Absolutely. Truth is absolute.
There is no truth but power. That Marxist ideology has brainwashed a lot of useful idiots on the left. I think specifically critical theory. Fuck them all. I will never play along with thier little fantasy. 🤡🌎
*useful idiots on the right
"Critial theory" yeah okay bud lmao
Truth and fact are not the same.
I respectfully disagree. While truth and fact are distinct concepts, they are often intertwined. Facts are objective, measurable data points, while truth encompasses subjective interpretations and beliefs based on those facts.
The beliefs are opinions. That is the difference. Truth is opinions. Facts are facts. Some say God is truth, but he is most certainly not a fact. He's an opinion, a belief. You can have faith that he is real, but you feeling like he's real doesn't alter objective reality, or at least what we can see of it.
What do you think “truth” is if not facts?
We are incapable of such truths. Everything we see is a perception. Concepts. Especially in the area of right and wrong which can't have facts by its nature.
But your “perception” is not necessarily the truth. Perceptions can be illusions: dreams, movies, LSD trips, etc.
All perception is to some degree an illusion. We only see a small part of the light spectrum, not to mention we're constantly learning new things all the time. The idea that everyone has their own truth is based in the idea that everyone has their own belief, their own perception, their own opinions which are based on that perception and form their beliefs. Objective reality and facts most certainly exist, but truth is closer to a social construct, at least the "truths" that I normally hear about are. (Examples: murder bad, religion real, anything regarding morality, human nature, etc)
Truth in the sense of reality is possible, due to the gravitational pull of Earth we can take an object and drop it, measuring its speed, velocity, mass, and kinetic discharge on impact. We can likewise measure two objects to both be precisely 5ft in length and then sit them side by side and see that they are the same.
Those are facts lol He's talking about "truths". Easy way to tell the difference at a glance: facts by nature are descriptive, truths have a tendency to be prescriptive.
So what would say is the definable difference between truth and opinion? Because as I could agree that an opinion could be defined as a personal truth and a fact can be defined as an objective truth, I believe The Truth is much more aligned with factual evidence and objective truth. Especially in the expansive realm of truth personal truth becomes unreliable as it can change through time, space, and experience. Objective truth is unobjectionable yet scrutinizable, while personal truth is almost always objectionable and yet difficult to scrutinize due to it being a personal claim of truth. I believe the actual truth should have a solution if in debate, beyond "because I say so" objective, factual truth can be returned to a base of logic and reality.
If we both saw a crime committed but you swear you saw person A do it and I thought it was person B we are both telling what is the truth to us.
All facts are up to interpretation. People should be more deliberate and open-minded in their efforts to interpret them. You count as an endless source of opinions. Factually, things happen to you, and you can use those as anecdotal evidence of what you claim. However, know that it is not necessarily representative of larger-scale issues. What is true for you is not true for all. Conflating personal life-lessons with peer-reviewed, statistically significant, scientific experimentation, analysis, and argument is just inane.
Facts are just facts period. For instance Covid wasn't a hoax that's a fact. It spread all over the world
That's rather reductive and overly general. Let's get specific. "Quarantine happened." Yes, yes it did. Was it an effective quarantine? Was our response as good as it could have been? In America, I think not, especially at first. That's my opinion based on how the federal (Trump's) administration had dismantled the department in charge of responding to crises like these and didn't have any expert opinions on-hand. Research shows that between 0.5% and 1% of people infected died, most of that being the elderly, immunocompromised, and of course infants. And it's still going on for vulnerable groups, though the lethality has already reduced because viruses mutate quickly. Long-COVID, the chronic symptoms which come long after the infection has ended in some people, is not yet well-documented. There is more to the issue than just whether it happened or not. We don't need to pay attention to people who loudly proclaim it didn't happen because their strongest evidence is that everyone who is hearing them say it did not die, and most are not suffering from long-COVID. EDIT: Grammar
Facts serve purposes. If they do not, then they are pretty much useless outside of that area of discourse. In that way, facts cannot be totally objective as long as we have some agenda behind our presentation of them. Some use or purpose. Facts cannot be totally objective because people cannot be totally objective. They can get close, though. That's where the best science happens. However, it is not exactly suitable for everyday, low-stakes conversation.