I have read several threads on site and I have come to the conclusion that people will say anything to defend their right to just say anything.
Just an example: "What about the...people that get married to immigrants just so they can keep their greencard? Why hasnt this been made illegal yet?"
"The USA was formed because being of people being perscuted by religion."
"i may be wrong but i could have sworn that the USA was made cause they didnt want to be apart of britian. "
Does anyone but me see a problem with this? That is just in one thread I found. Now, I am not spouting opinions about the topics of the threads themselves, but rather the erroneous arguments that people give for their stand. If you are going to state something, at least check it out to make sure it is true.
Please, bear in mind that this is not about opinions, but rather checking out whether or not the statements you use are true or erroneous. Opinions belong in another thread.
-
Objectivity of TruthHow can any one person say that THIS is true or THAT is true? Are we not influenced by what we experience? As in the thread above, Nos referenced the belief in god. To one person, god is True. To an Athiest, god is false. To a religious person, Evolution is false, but to a scientist, Evolution is real. Can we, who see this world through small chemical reactions, actually understand the concept of Truth???75% Voted for by Kazrith, TeChNoWC, Energizer Bunny.
-
yesPeople on this site do say stupid things, but they're people, and most peole are stupid. I totally agree with you, but what can we do?Voted for by Second.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
October 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
This topic is about facts and the use of such to make comments. And definitely the failure to know whether or not the facts are true. It is really not about opinions or beliefs.
Xelgaroth
October 14, 2007
Kazrith
October 14, 2007
Xelgaroth
October 18, 2007
In lieu of the topic of this thread (researching facts before making a point, I was saying that you need to research your facts. The emphasis ["YOU"] was to illustrate that while discussing people's need to research facts, you did not.
However, in retrospect, as I look at your entire statement again, you never said a word about researching or not researching. Ergo, it kind of makes what I said a moot point. I fear that I sounded rather harsh and accusing, and for that, I apologize, Kaz.
However, allow me to give you an actual argument to your statement: There are two main flaws I see in your argument. First off, you are assuming that it is impossible to know something. Not only this, but due to this belief you seem to take on an almost nihilistic view of knowledge. "Well, since we can never actually 'KNOW' anything, it doesn't matter." Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but it is the way it came across anyway. Please clarify for me if I'm wrong, and further explain if I'm right. Secondly, if we go with the assumption that we really CAN'T "know" anything, then why is it that you portray thoughts as "chemical reactions" as if it is fact as well? As you say, we cannot "know" this, so it is really meaningless, as persuasive as a religious person denying evolution or an atheist denying god.
Kazrith
October 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
sigh
you can know something, but do you really know it is true?the religion and evolution example was merely that, an example. it needs not validity, for it is a point.
besides, if you believe you know something, are you going to research it?
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free