I'm not following the ramadan rules, so I can allow myself to be lazy enough to believe that what you are saying is a fact. Still friends, aren't we?
On 15 Sep., 17:03, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ahhh Gabs you can disagree with me any time you like darlin'! > > However if I say it is a fact that sunrise this morning was at 06:34. > Is it a fact or not? > > On 15 Sep, 15:46, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't agree with your definition of "facts", Lee. > > > We speak of facts when we mean things that theoretically everyone has > > the potential to access, no matter which way the person perceives > > this. Children included! :-) > > > On 15 Sep., 10:49, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote:> Heh sorry Slip I'll try to play nice huh. > > > > Yes a fact is a fact and that is a fact! > > > > Although I think you would be hard pressed to find a true objective > > > (science not-withstanding) fact, your dog food example, for umm > > > example. > > > > Dog food is only for dogs because that is what we subjectivly use it > > > for > > > . A fact is that most food can be eaten by most animals, including > > > > ourselfs. > > > >I guess what I'm trying to show is that this: > > > > 'Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, so we > > > should work from there.' > > > > Is not objectivly true. Of ourse factts can be subject to > > > subjectivity. If the meaning of the word 'fact' is a play on the word > > > 'truth' then any fact that is not scientific in nature can be > > > subjectivly true. > > > > I is an objeective fact that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, except of > > > coure if you measure me in eterss. > > > > It is a subjective fact that a Socialist goverment is better for the > > >whole of sociaty than a Conservitive goerment.. > > > > Pilosophy, pooitics andd religon are all subject to relatve > > > ar > > > rguments, each person will take a stance and claim it as truth. I> claim > > that Rands philosophy does not work in the real word, my > > > evidance is purly subjective and bsed uponon mown i interactions wi > > > fol > > > ollows of Rand, but I can certianly say that my claim is facas> Rand > > > Rand can claim that: > > > to the ends of others. > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of > > > his life.' > > > > Is also a fact. The true fact is that both of us have uttered what is > > > no more than opinion. > > > > Unless of course you can objectivly show me why the above is fact? > > > > On 14 Sep, 19:09, Slip Disc <[email protected] 14 Sep, 1 > > > > > Come'on mon, stop jerkin me chain. > > > > > I changed it to "Product", not any specific product t to "Puodun turn > > > > into argumentative matter, but point is subjectivity does not change > > > > fact. > > > > It's "NOT" about any car lee, nor about debating a product's value. > > > > > FACT: Dog food is for dogs. > > > > Billy Bob: "I think dog food tastes good" > > > > Sally: "I mix dog food with my Ramen". > > > > Lee: "Dog food has real food in it" > > > > SO which is it? > > > > Fact A: Dog food is not dog foos it?ause "some" people like to eat it. > > > > OR > > > > Fact B: Dog food is still dog food even though some people like to eat > > > > it. Dog food is for dogs. > > > > > I go with Fact B. > > > > > On Sep 14, 7:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Well I'll take that as a compliment Slip, cheers mate. > > > > > > Your reply to my first post was though full of subjectivity. You did > > > > > not mention any particular car, so without the full information I > > > > > could only assume you meant all cars, or cars in general. The fact is > > > > > that some cars are better built than most, yes some are junk some are > > > > > not. > > > > > > So when you say 'the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk', well I see > > > > > no fact there at all merely opinion, and thus my response. If you had > > > > > made your analogy clearer, then my response would have been differant, > > > > > or I may have even agreed with you. > > > > > > Yes I have agreed that I can see some validty in the quote of RaI can > > > > > see > > > that you provided, my main thrust is that in my experiance the> > > > > philosphy of Rand simplriance not work in the real word. > > > > > > I wonder now would you see such a statmentwonder nowive fact or > > > ee such ajective opinion? > > > > > > On 14 Sep, 12:34, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Fa <bug...facts but coloured by our subjective understanding>>Lee > > > > > > > You can color facts all you want but "fact" remains unchanged. > > > > > > > I think you have a tendency to get a bit microscopic in your > > > > > > analysis, > > > > > > not to mention that you are not addressing the point made but > > > > > > emphasizing subjectivity. It's not about cars! > > > > > > The "fact of subjectivity" does not alter the "fact". > > > > > > If a product is junk, the fact that people may perceive it to be > > > > > > other > > > > > > does not change the fact that the product is junk. > > > > > > > Rand can be chilly but not totally without validity in regards to > > > > > > alternative thinking. It's not about the differences in people. > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 3:56 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Slip. > > > > > > > > Umm much to say on this. > > > > > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding. A > > > > > > > car > > > > > > > to you may be a piece of junk, but to o tors represents freedom of > > > > > > > movment as well as being a marvel of engineering, these are both > > > > > > > facts > > > > > > > also. However they seem to go against what you claim is the fact > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > that youer re: cars. > > > > > > > > So which facts are objectivly correct? > > > > > > > > This: > > > > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > He must exist for his own sake, > > > > Hecrificing himself to > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral > > > > > > > purpose > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > his life." > > > > > > > > On the surface does look like good advice and I do see some merit > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > it, yet it still ignores the differances in people, and it > > > > > > > reminds me > > > > > > > a ot of certain Church of Satan creeds, again I also have known > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > such Satanists and I can say without fear of catanists ann that > > > > > > > such a > > > > > > > philosophy when puthanto practice makes for a cold human being. > > > > > > > > No I'm much more comfatable with the philosophy 'be the person > > > > > > > yole with the p > > > ish to be'. If that is to be selfish then that is at least your> > > > > > > choice, and if that is to be alturisitic agae, and if personal > > > > > > > choice. > > > > > > > The highest moral porpouse then must be live your life how you > > > > > > > will, > > > > > > > in accordance with the law of the land. > > > n accordanc > > > I am not a fan of soldiers on the whole, our(the UK) armed forces > > > >the whol takes in children and passes out wankers, of course though I see > > >the > > > > > > > need and I don't blame the individual squaddies for the lack of > > > > > > > care > > > > > > > that our goverement gives them. Would you say that to be a > > > > > > > soldier is > > > > > > > in keeping with Randian thought? Or that it is more self > > > > > > > sacrificial > > > > > > > in nature? > > > > > > > > I would argu in natureer. So you see the word Randriod is very > > > > > > > apt, > > > > > > > no it would bloody awfapt, > > > e all thought like that, viva la > > > > > > > differance! > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 08:25, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > c <bug..anks for the link Molly; > > > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > > > It's really just a ground level platform on ally just xpand. > > > > > > > > Rand > > > > > > > > simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled > > > > > > > > world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them > > > > > > > > to be, > > > > > > > > so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile > > > > > > > > commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of > > > > > > > > junk > > > > > > > > but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can > > > > > > > > altruistically give > > > > > > > > a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try > > > > > > > > in some > > > > > > > > way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes > > > > > > > > precedence over the other. Rand states: > > > > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of > > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own > > > > > > > > rational > > > > > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral > > > > > > > > purpose of > > > > > > > > his life." > > > > > > > > It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part > > > > > > > > of your > > > > > > > > own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much > > > > > > > > good if > > > > > > > > you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > excess of your self interest and happiness. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy > > > > > > > > > of Rand. > > > > > > > > > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with. > > > > > > > > > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral > > > > > > > > > purpose, can > > > > > > > > > readily fit alongside my own, '> > > reabe'. But this idea > > > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > > > all should rely on our own (absolute) > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
