Sheridan and the WTC

[solaris5]

Well, since I am not present at the board myself, my posts are the only thing vouching for myself. To have them called "crap" and "dripping with prejudice and truthless" and then the same someone tells me to "crack open a textbook" I would consider that an insult. A person has every right to agree or disagree, but not to insult my oppinion. Insulting someone's oppinion is in my view the equivalent of insulting the person, no different. The main concept behind a messageboard is to share and accept ideas and this required tolerance. Tolerance is the basic concept behind society, and yet, we do not see it from the Taliban, we do not see it from the US, so people will naturally assume that it's okay to be closed minded and in-tolerant of people's views.
The problem is not someone calling what another person says crap. The problem is the concept of complete ignorance and in-tolerance that seems to be plaguing all of mankind. In all my time on the internet I have tried never to outright say that someone is an idiot, or that his viewpoints are idiotic (This is why I left TrekBBS and Flare, there was far too much of this going on there), and while I've often found myself disagreeing with Antony's decisions on certain things, I've always felt good about posting in his messageboards, because it is this basic rule that requires respect of others that keeps B5LR, and kept TrekChat fun to go to. And I will uphold those rules to the last breath or resign my position.

May Valen be with you.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Sol, I did find the prejudice in the post offensive. When someone is prejudiced and closed minded, they always are, regardless of who they are talking to, so I don't take it personally, even if it is meant that way. A friend of mine says "What is the least likely occupation in the Taliban regime? A stand up comedian." Fortunately, our country is more tolerant. We have lots of them.

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?

 

[GKarsEye]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by solaris5:
Well there is nothing wrong with being careful of others feelings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There could be if it is at the expense of truth. What is more important to you (not just you Sol, I mean everyone), truth or people's feelings?

I would say truth, but maybe I'm not right about that. I have no way to "proove" that, nor do I feel I have to. If you don't agree with that, fine, but you can't say for sure that it's wrong, because truth is an extremely important thing. The difference of opinion lies in where we place our priorities.

To that end, I would say you can tell someone their opinion is "crap," if all evidence points to the contrary, if the person is being close-minded or prejudiced, and even if it violates logic and common sense. Sure, it's better to not resort to that sort of harsh language if you don't have to, but some people just need the proverbial kick in the ass sometimes.

For example, I would tell a member of the Taliban that his ideas are crap and that he is an idiot.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

 

[bakana]

The most disgusting part of the whole thing is that, if the Israelis & Palestinians had put all the money they have spent on Bombs & Guns over the last 20 years into Building Schools, homes, businesses, etc., Israel would be one of the wealthiest economies on the planet.

They'd all be too busy counting their money to fight.



------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!

 

[giffy]

Truth like feelings is an individualistic and relative thing. To claim that there suc ha thing as objectivity and abosulte truth is "crap"

Just kidding. However I do think that objectivity is subjective. FOr example it was thought that the earth was the center of the universe. There was evidence and "objective" people believed it. We "know" diffrently today. Looking back we can see how emotion and values effected their conception of truth. Peoples belif in God and how he/she controls the world can drasticly effect there outlook. Knowledge is a combination of how one experences and feels about the world. Someone cannot seperate themselves from there emotions any more then from there eyes or their ears or even their mind. The key is to explore the interaction between sences and mind and to recgonize that all views are true to the ones that hold them. If we decide on what we want then we can look at how to get there. Once again sorry for rambling.

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures

 

[GKarsEye]

giffy, what you're saying is common and popular, but ultimately doesn't hold water.

If "emotion and values effected their conception of truth," then it isn't truth. It is belief. The two are different and often don't coincide.

The earth is some shape. Whether we think it round or not does not make it so. The "evidence" for the earth being flat, or the "center of the universe" was flawed, incomplete, and burdenned by dogma, religion, and politics, all of which act as obstacles to truth.

If there is no truth, then why do we have science? Isn't it to discover the way the world works? The very idea of the scientific method is based on the concept that the universe exists and operates in a certain fashion, and anything we don't know about it is either ultimately unknowable or hasn't been discovered yet.

The idea that truth is dependant on our perceptions is based on human arrogance. Who are we to alter reality based on our whims and failings? Isn't it more reasonable to assume the people just make mistakes?

The problem is that many do not value truth, knowledge, and fact. They place their own petty beliefs, dogmas, and opinions above them. There is nothing wrong with these things, as long as they don't conflict with fact. I am not wrong to think that blue is a prettier color than red, or that a smaller government generally benefits the economy and, therefore, the public (I'm just using this as an example, please don't start a whole discussion on politics).

However, I would be wrong to believe in the geocentric model of the solar system. In that case, my opinion would be worthless and just plain wrong. Why? Because there is so much evidence to contradict that and it has been proven so extensively that it is fact, not opinion of belief.

Objectivity is not subjective. Now you're just playing with words. That's like saying "evil is good." People can certainly be objective if they honestly desire to do so. Ask yourself, do you?

So, no, not all opinions and viewpoints are valid.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Nope.

But then it's been said that solipsism is its own reward, sew whaddoo eye no?

------------------
Joe Medina (neargrai@aol.com)

"...that which are, we are"

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well said, G'Kar'sEye.

Just thought I'd throw that in to make sure it didn't look as if my last post was disputing yours. I'm just limiting my smart-ass responses in case this guy turns out to be a troll.

------------------
Joe Medina (neargrai@aol.com)

"...that which are, we are"

[This message has been edited by Darquin (edited October 24, 2001).]

 

[giffy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> If there is no truth, then why do we have science? Isn't it to discover the way the world works? The very idea of the scientific method is based on the concept that the universe exists and operates in a certain fashion, and anything we don't know about it is either ultimately unknowable or hasn't been discovered yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The line of philosophy that I subscribe to (feminist epistemology umong others) tends to questions the assumtions made in the scientific method. While there certanly is a way that the world is in a physical sence, it is not possible for an idividual to objectivly understand it. To assume that one can rise above themselves is to assume the impossible. Knowledge exists in communities not in indivuals. A community that balences biases can achieve some level of truth. I did not mean to say hat truth is nonexistant only that it is subjective to the indivual. We are as effected by our emotions and bias as any people in history. By regonising the role that emotion and sujectivity play in knowledge, one can better understand what is true. Objectivty is subjective becuase the very act of valueing objectivity is in itself a subjective desion. Sorry if I am not being clear, being at work has a way of clouding ones mind

BTY Darquin, I'm not sure that I am being solipistic. The very act of valuing subjecitivy assumes that other people exist and have the same validity. Perhapse you were refering to yourself.


------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures

 

[bakana]

Interesting sidenote to the discussion.

Over the last few weeks, the Irish Republican Army has announced that, for the first time ever, they will participate openly in the Peace process for Northern Ireland.
IRA units have even turned in guns, ammo and explosives.
Something that has Never happened before.

The reason for this sudden change of heart?

Well, speculation notes that the IRA was largely funded by secret money transfers from sympathizers living in the USA.
Since Sept. 11, the money has simply Stopped.
Irish fundraisers in the US appear to have decided that their consciences will no longer allow them to support Any sort of terrorism, anywhere.
With the Money gone, the IRA seems to have discovered that it's will to Fight is also gone.

Now, if we can dry up the funding for a few Other tribal conflicts...



------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!

 

[giffy]

I took the question
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> What is more important to you (not just you Sol, I mean everyone), truth or people's feelings <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
to mean what we thought was the better aim. Sorry if I misunderstood.
A nessary condition of truth is that it exists as a belief in someone. For example it may be true that an advanced civilization lives on alpha centari. However it may also e false. It will not be true untill someone knows that it is true. The key word there is know. Knowledge has been traditionally defined as "s knows that p" Were s is a subject and p is a propesion. Most theories focus on the p ie what makes said proposition true. More recent philosophies have looked at s or the subjct. How does ones standpoitn influence what they know and consequently what is true. Emotions effect knowledge in that they both effect what people study and how they intreprt data. If gravity makes you angry and you seek to disprove it, you will look more favrably on the evidenc that supports your theory. No person can rise above there emotions no matter how hard they try. That is where group knowldge comes in. Redifing knowledge in group terms leads to "ses know that p" Were ses is a group of indivuals that posses knowledge. A good example of how ideology can effect knowldge comes from Barbra Mclinktocks look at slim mold. Most scientists belived that changes in slim mold were the result of the actions of a master cell. ie one cell that was above the other cells and would tell them when to change. This was an extrapolation of hierarchies in the human world to the world of slim mold. Mclinktock sought to prove that slim mold as a group reacted to change. Her view turned out to be "true." Now we say that her view is corect ecause it has the most empiracal evicence. Can we say that it will e true for a thousand years. No, it very well may be proven false. This is why the s and the p are equal in knowledge. Truth is dependant not only on the object being discussed but also on the knower themselves.

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by giffy:
BTY Darquin, I'm not sure that I am being solipistic. The very act of valuing subjecitivy assumes that other people exist and have the same validity. Perhapse you were refering to yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope.

Okay, smart-ass comments aside. Maybe you're a troll, maybe you honestly mean what you say.

See, here's my problem. I don't believe trolls. I believe your whole thread is nothing but a troll, and I haven't seen much to convince me otherwise.

Most trolls are often rude, tacky, blatantly inflammatory, horribly spelled, distort commonly accepted facts, frequently hostile, and most of all are calculated to be bait everyone into a flame war.

The logic in your arguments is spurious at best, but you keep plugging away as if you're determined to articulate a coherent point of view, oblivious to the fact that the comparison you made was cruel and poorly thought out.

You see my problem? I can't tell whether your argument is genuine and you're just insensitive, or if you're deliberately raising a stink to get attention. So unless that changes, I have to assume this is just a gag.

------------------
Joe Medina (neargrai@aol.com)

"...that which are, we are"

 

[giffy]

I am sorry that you feel that way. The thread was not meant to be insensitive at all, nor was it an attension grab. I am very sensite to the thousands that died on 9/11, I am also sensative to those that died else wereThe purpose was to have a discusion on legitimate use of force and morality of mass murder ie sheridan and the terrorists. It changed into a discusion of forieng policy and then in to one of epistemology. Nowere to my knowedge did I insult or attac kany one. I feel that my eliefs are valid and there are numourous people (many very educated)who feel the same way. For example Chomsky and Zinn on the forieng policy side and Harding and McWhorter on the epistemolgoy side. There are also some that disagree and thats fine to. The point is to talk and discuse and see were it takes you. If I have upset you I am truly sorry, but the only one who has been insulting in this thread is you.

BTW I aplogize for my spelling I ofte don't have time to proof read and spelling has never been one of my strong points

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures

 

[solaris5]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
Solaris, I really don't see how you disagree with me, you're just arguing semantics. You said that "if a person can get the facts to back up an oppinion, then it is valid." Right. So, if the facts contradict an opinion, it is not valid. People commonly hold opinions that are contradicted by facts. Therefore, not all opinions are valid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can twist facts to back up any oppinion. So every oppinion has some facts behind it, regardless of how twisted and/or trivial that fact may seem. No one has a factless oppinion, the facts you have may not be real facts, but they are to you and you use them to back up your oppinion.
Trust me, this is entirely screwed up, there is no point in arguing about it, every oppinion is as valid as you make it to be when you are arguing for or against it.


May Valen be with you.

 

[taichidave]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by giffy:
I am sorry that you feel that way. The thread was not meant to be insensitive at all, nor was it an attension grab. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I think you're the one being disingenous here.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I have a feeling this thread will generate some heat so here goes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You posted this knowing full well it was inflammatory.

I'll forgive bad spelling and grammar. No one's perfect. In fact, I just botched "disingenuous." Heck, I'll even forgive feminist epistemology. (Though my exposure to it was thankfully brief, it left me with a recurring pain behind my right eye.)

But please don't try to stir up sh!t and tell me you're picking daisies.

------------------
"We are (not) all Kosh."

[This message has been edited by taichidave (edited October 24, 2001).]

 

[giffy]

By heat I simply meant strong discusion. I new that people would have srong feelings on this, that is what I meant. There is nothing wrong with a little contavercy. He was impling that I did this only to start a flame war. THat is not the case. I did this to start a good discussion. I was saying that this would genrate some heat both in jest and as a simple acknolagment that people will have strong feelings on this subject as they have had in the past.

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures

 

[solaris5]

Fact of the matter is that this thread would do much better locked than open. I ask either Ivanova, Prophet or Antony to lock this, there is really no point in keeping it open.

May Valen be with you.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Dry up the money for other tribal conflicts? I hope you include spectator sports in that

.

My take: certainly, objective reality exists, but as human beings with many failings both mental and physical, political and religious biases among them, it can be hard to know when we're right, and Giffy has a point, that it takes a community, with collective observations to determine truth. That is part of the scientific method. But those communities are often biased, as in the cases G'Kar's Eye cites. This is why it takes many years to come to things that are accepted as objective truth by most people. The big bang theory is not accepted by everyone. One day, it may be a basic truth, or as scientific as bleeding for fevers. Time will tell. And it is not just our mental proceses that limit our understanding. Take optical illusions-- many are very convincing, yet we are not seeing what we think. And what if we could see or hear in other parts of the spectrum, not just using instruments. Think how that might affect our perceptions of reality. And by the way, the earth isn't round, or spherical, even if you forgetabout the mountains and valleys. It's actually sort of pear shaped. Just an example of how what we are sure of can still be subject to refinement.

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Whoops! just read page 2 of this thread. First, I don't think Giffy is a troll, it was an interesting, if contraversial question. But I can't agree with Giffy's statement that something is true only if we know it. That is absurd. If there is civilization on Alpha Centauri, that is certainly true, even if it is currently unknowable or provable.

And G's Eye-- yes, the doppler effect would explain red shift, but what if there is another explanation. Perhaps red shift is also a form of decay that waves go through that is only noticable over long distances? Perhaps red shift is caused by both effects, so the universe is expanding, just more slowly than we think. One day, this will probably be as elementary to us as the shape of the earth, but we don't know enough to be certain yet, so best to keep an open mind, and rely on the scientific method, and not just cling to orthodoxy!

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

P.S., I agree that this topic has gone rather far afield from the original post, which did pertain to B5, and certainly started some lively discussion. And to repeat, I don't think Giffy is a troll. I may not entirely agree with him, but his posts are thoughtful, not bomb throwing. But we seem to have strayed from B5, so it may be best to lock and move this thread.

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?