EnviroLink Forum

That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.




You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.



Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.



You cannot see past your own beliefs can you? The action is not in question, the pain is not in question, and the beliefs you hold are not in question. It is whether the actions are valid for a society based on their beliefs at the time. Not the beliefs held by any other society at that time or any other.

The society in Saudia Arabia chops off the hand of a thief as punishment. It is very painful. It is accepted in that society. It is not accepted in western societies, however, so it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment here. The society there accepts it and the society here does not. There it is fine, but here it is not. That is the point and one, it seems, you try so very hard not to see.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.[/quote]

That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.




You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.



Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.



You cannot see past your own beliefs can you? The action is not in question, the pain is not in question, and the beliefs you hold are not in question. It is whether the actions are valid for a society based on their beliefs at the time. Not the beliefs held by any other society at that time or any other.

The society in Saudia Arabia chops off the hand of a thief as punishment. It is very painful. It is accepted in that society. It is not accepted in western societies, however, so it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment here. The society there accepts it and the society here does not. There it is fine, but here it is not. That is the point and one, it seems, you try so very hard not to see.[/quote]

Repetion.

In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.





What part of pain not being RELEVANT to cultural norm do you not understand? If pain is the deciding factor, the infants with pierced ears, or a circumcised penis, or any other painful procedure are being abused according to you yet you are not complaining so loudly are you?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I was more of an optimist during that period and before the agreement with facts but still questioning them position.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Which one was that ..... I could probably speak to it. Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...

You already said enough here:



The fact that you do not recognize one of the last points of discussion underlines the lack of cohesion in your portion of the discussion and reinforces the idea this discussion is now more of a waste of time than not.



Mud would always be objective, but the ideology you referenced in relation would almost always be subjective. Again this question reinforces the futility of such a discussion given the lack of understanding between what is objective and subjective it displays.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/1 ... 0840.html'

LONDON, Nov 17 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Almost 36 million people are living as slaves across the globe with an index on Monday listing Mauritania, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Qatar and India as the nations where modern-day slavery is most prevalent.

The Walk Free Foundation, an Australian-based human rights group, estimated in its inaugural slavery index last year that 29.8 million people were born into servitude, trafficked for sex work, trapped in debt bondage or exploited for forced labor.

Releasing its second annual index, Walk Free increased its estimate of the number of slaves to 35.8 million, saying this was due to better data collection and slavery being uncovered in areas where it had not been found previously.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago. [/quote]

I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I was more of an optimist during that period and before the agreement with facts but still questioning them position.[/quote]



You already said enough here:



The fact that you do not recognize one of the last points of discussion underlines the lack of cohesion in your portion of the discussion and reinforces the idea this discussion is now more of a waste of time than not.





Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology is that? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?

Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology are you talking about sonce I haven't offered one? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?[/quote]

And DO remember that it was you that quoted this author:

"....Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits."

And I might add ....mud, soil, dirt, bricks, etc.

The author you cited went on to say that .... "Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, ... "

Molecules are part of both mud, and the walls we make of mud.

" ..... whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon. In other words, most of what we call reality is political opinion is a different thing. Actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.

Like borders ...... which are made out of mud .... objective mud. The meaning we give to this mud is subjective. While mud is objective, the meaning we give to mud is subjective.

The author you provided also stated that ...

"Subjective reality can also seem like objective reality when many people agree on and share the subjective reality."

And have we not agreed that mud can be borders? Mud is objective ... borders are nothing more or less than the meaning we give to them. Borders are not real and no arguing for the objectivity of mud can make them so.

You brought up ideology not I. I assume it was ideology in general, but only you know for sure. Ideology is used to decide where a border is to be placed, but once decided the "mud" is often replaced by metal wire, fences, and concrete to create an objective division from the subjective decision. That is what I have been saying all along because man-made borders are objective divisions for any outside observer.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Who is this "outside observer"? Is this outsider observed not different form the insider?
Are they different?

I know this is what you have been saying. I knew it along time ago.

And so do you it seems. Can we now explore this?

Ummm no. Ideology is not a border or it would never change due to outside influences. As I stated, ideology is used in the decision of where a border will exist, but it is not a border which can be determined by an outside observer.



Yes, that is true to a very large extent since border placement is subjective in many cases, but the discussion was whether a border was objective and it is because the materials of which it is made is objective. Now, the border between two middle eastern desert countries, for example, will be more subjective because they are not able to be marked by those objective materials as well.



The symbolic aspect is subjective too. For example the swastika used in the Nazi symbolism has a much older connotation which is far less sinister.



The significance that it is a border. That may be important or very important depending on the location. The border between the US and Canada, for example, would not be as significant as you approach as the border between North and South Korea. One is much more likely get you killed if you try to cross it illegally.



Yes, the basic illusion is in the argument. The use to prevent babies from falling down stairs is a division that was not real either. The stairs were constructed and they are not considered to be such a division for adults, so many of the same "illusions" still exist, but you agree with them.



The outside observer is anyone not involved with the decision and in some cases even those involved with the decision might also qualify.



Yes, everyone is different in some way. Some are more different than others.



I suspected it. What is there to explore? The wisdom of the placement of borders over history? Many of those decisions were beyond poor and led to later wars and more poor decisions on border placement.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein