Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW

by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry: wikipedia: In science 'fact' is an objective and verifiable observation .

  Hee-hee! Well, that's as may be, but in English:

  Main Entry: factFunction: noun
  Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
  1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
  2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
  3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
  5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
  - in fact : in truth
  Merriam-Webster Online

  You see the problem? The concept of fact as presented in science is ONLY applicable in the laboratory, whereas reality, the "real world" to which you refer, exists both within and outside the laboratory.

  My definition is the English definition, utile in a broad understanding of reality. Your defniition is sterile and requires a clean room.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Robdar

  It's gotten to the point that I am no longer reading your posts on this thread, Terry. And not because of your razor sharp logic. It's because you are becoming obsessed and boring. Just seeing your name on the post is enough to make my eyes glaze over. You are becoming as didactic as John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. After a while, an audience just gets tired of assumed moral superiority on the part of the writer/speaker. You're not winning this argument. You're just putting us to sleep.

  **Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice--Ayn Rand
• 

  AuldSoul

  kid-A,

  In my estimation, ANYONE who does not allow for other viewpoints is intolerant. I agree with you, there are many intolerant and bigoted theists. I just don't understand how some perceive themselves as free of intolerance just because they don't feel they have to justify their viewpoint. As far as I know, there is no compelling reason for anyone to justify their individual perception to anyone else.

  And as to already agreeing to that point, I think if you read carefully Terry does not agree and is likely in quite vocal disagreement as we type.

  kid-A: If the believer of said facts truly holds to the veracity of their statements, then their statements should be able to withstand ANY form of questioning, testing, experimentation or falsification.

  I agree. However, scorn and ridicule found no place in your list of what the veracity of statement should be able to withstand. Scorn and ridicule is not criticism, it is intolerance.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Terry

  Main Entry: factFunction: noun
  
  Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
  
  1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
  
  2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
  
  3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
  
  5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
  
  - in fact : in truth
  
  Merriam-Webster Online

  You see the problem? The concept of fact as presented in science is ONLY applicable in the laboratory, whereas reality, the "real world" to which you refer, exists both within and outside the laboratory.

  Well, you can cut and past, but; you don't read what you cut and paste!

  Stop a moment and read the above.

  Pause slowly and allow your eyes to focus on the part about "information presented as having objective reality"

  Further, ask yourself what the sentence means that says "something that has actual existence"

  Ponder: "The quality of being actual"

  Ask yourself whether these definitions conforms to what you are saying in your posts or to what I am saying.

  I'll wait while you perform these actions.

  Tum tee tum tum la dee dah dee dah..
• 

  Terry

  z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z
• 

  LittleToe

  And you pick and choose which posts to respond to, when you're on a back foot...

  ...ironically it's similar behaviour to the more outrageous believers, that we've had popping up on this site.
• 

  Terry

  
  There are people here who want their own set of facts. They can have them.

  What happens in the privacy of their widdle bwains is up to them.

  There are people here who have their own opinions about whether there is objective reality. May they go in peace.

  The thread began by raising a question.

  The question had to do with INTOLERANCE.

  I might ask why no definition was given for the term at the outset. But, that would have stopped the stray cats from knocking the lids off of trash cans.

  In a social or political sense, intolerance is the absence of tolerance toward (acceptance of) people with differing viewpoints. As a social construct, it is open to interpretation. For example, one might define intolerance as an expressed, negative or hostile attitude toward another's views, even if no action is taken to squelch such opposing views or silence those who hold them. Tolerance, in contrast, can mean "disagreeing peaceably." Emotion is a primary factor that differentiates intolerance from respectful disagreement.

  The key point is whether people disagree peaceably. How much emotion is let loose in place of peaceable discussion?

  That might be an interesting discussion if it ever happens.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Um...okay...but I feel rather silly teaching you English. "Presented as having" would be what we call a subjective qualifier. Notice there is no indication of a requirement to scientifically prove objective reality, merely a requirement to "present as having" objective reality.

  In the case of the stop sign, had they never returned to the town both the driver and the passenger would present their account of that intersection as having objective reality, that is, as fact. Those facts would be directly contradictory, so only one would possess actuality, but both would be facts until one was proven false. As things worked out in the parable, only one of the two ever knew the actuality. Both would have proceeded to hold as fact, as an objective reality, the position they held at the outset.

  This is why eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable as evidence. Testimonials of any variety, for that matter.

  I hope this English lesson helps, but I am becoming increasingly skeptical.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  The thread began by raising a question. The question had to do with INTOLERANCE.

  The question has been addressed by almost every poster in this thread, including myself. And you have demonstrated the point admirably, in my opinion.

  Scorn and ridicule are not valid criticism, constitute intolerance, and remove all ethical basis for tolerance of "facts" expressed by the ridiculer.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Terry

  And you pick and choose which posts to respond to, when you're on a back foot...

  ...ironically it's similar behaviour to the more outrageous believers, that we've had popping up on this site.

  Oh boo hoo.

  We all respond as we pick and choose, don't we?

  Everybody has a different style on this board.

  Yours is passive-agressive.

  Mine is direct.

  You hardly ever come out and say what is on your mind. I do.

  I don't require people think as I do. I don't require people share my values.

  I do require that a discussion about words, terms, concepts, etc. have actual definitions we can all agree on.

  Is that "outrageous"? Well, it certainly narrows the disagreement in advance doesn't it?

  I notice there are posters here that don't like to be confronted with the vagueness of their own arguments. Who would?

  But, to hide behind a nebulous smokescreen of "anything can mean anything" just short-circuits conversation.

  People who can't argue on facts try to erect obstacles instead.

  Then, the discussion becomes all about removing road blocks and a tussle over semantics bloats into mind-numbing pedantry.

  That's what we have here.

  If you don't like the fact I actually require some standard of definition, that's okay.

  I still wuv you