Contradiction

Craig- "Is Truth somehow diminished or less True because some subset of people don't believe it or deny it?"

Dan- "Nope."

 Craig... " If you can't agree that an objective Truth exists"

Dan- "GOOD God almighty! YES!

"I AGREE THAT OBJECTIVE TRUTH EXISTS.
I AGREE THAT THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT I BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!"

"Truth is True, no matter where it comes from."

Dan-"These are competing Truth claims, thus, I refer to the multiple Truth claims."

Dan- "But I've always been quite clear that I believe in THE TRUTH. I've never obfuscated or been unclear about this.  So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth, because I've clarified what was already clear."

Craig- " So, you are claiming that we can know the Truth?"

Dan- "YYYYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!  ONE MILLION TIMES, YES!"

 Craig- "Personally, I see absolutely zero value in a worldview that is based on anything except the Truth."

Dan- "Me, either."




Dan- " Sometimes we use the term Truths to refer to literal multiple truths"

Dan- " “There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably”

Dan- " These are multiple, infinite Truths because there are multiple, infinite questions."

Dan- " He is referring to MULTIPLE Truths"

Dan- " YES, 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 ARE two distinct Truths. But more apt, 1+1=2 and Joe owns a Hyundai are ALSO two distinct Truths.  There are multiple Truths in this world and that is an observable objective fact."

Dan- " hose are TWO diverse/distinct Truths in one real world. "




Ok, I could post more, but this is representative.  What we've seen is multiple adamant references to The Truth (singular), then a bizarre switch to "truths" plural.   I think the most telling contradiction is
 "So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth,".

This raises several distinct possiilities.

1.  Dan decided that talking about objective Truth was headed down a road that he didn't like and decided that changing course and denying what he had been affirming was a good strategy to derail things.
2.  One of Dan's contradictory positions is not True.
3.  Dan decided that it was critical to introduce a version of subjective morality into the conversation because the notion of some sort of Objective Truth opens the door to an objective morality.
4.  Dan is a person who believes that whatever he says or writes in literally True in the moment that he says or writes it, but once he says or writes something else then that becomes True.


I could come up with all sorts of imaginary motivations for Dan contradicting himself, buy it's pointless.  It's most likely one of the semantic games he delights in and he'll go to increasingly imaginative and creative ways to explain this contradiction.

I can’t even come up with a title

“There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably”

I’m probably going to regret this, (I’m putting it in its own thread so I can abort it if necessary) but I’m going to ask anyway.

What in the hell are these 25-49 different truths?

This

“Something good is going to come out of this season. If you asked me to prove it, I couldn't. Not yet anyway. I don't have evidence. All I have is faith, this small, barely there at times, glimmer of belief. But that's more than enough for today. (Expect to see this tomorrow too!)

John Acuff

There are too many people out there who deny anything that doesn’t live up to their standard of proof.   I can’t help but think that being limited to a world where you sacrifice faith and hope on the alter of proof, must be a sad way to live.

Thanks John!

Harm is an interesting thing.

https://aristake.com/post/AB5?fbclid=IwAR1KjJLFa7Qdcd0DbLTW7ASeg6OqvNM5BdPp4Q17QkjyLw2LEy7tqRaM76k


The above was something that my cousin posted a while back about a new law in CA.  He's a musician and he and other musicians are convinced that this law is going to cause them significant harm.

https://twitter.com/johnstossel/status/1237402301784088578

John Stossel covered it here.

It seems strange to see a state run by progressives passing a law with so much potential to harm people.  It seems immoral.

Of course, what's interesting from those complaining, is that they have the solution to the problem, they just choose not to avail themselves of it.

Remember... (Updated)

...when Trump was being vilified (and Cuomo was ignored) for suggesting that Chloroquine might be effective in fighting the Wuhan virus?  Remember when Trump was blamed for a couple of people who decided to skip all the consulting a physician nonsense and self medicate with fish tank cleaner?  Well, it looks like science is catching up with Trump and Cuomo.

A French Dr is having virtually a 100% success rate with Chloroquine.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-researcher-in-Marseille-posts-successful-Covid-19-coronavirus-drug-trial-results

Novartis is preparing to donate 130,000,000 doses and Reuters reports the following.

"Novartis Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan said his Sandoz generics unit’s malaria, lupus and arthritis drug hydroxychloroquine is the company’s biggest hope against the coronavirus, Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung reported on SundayNovartis has pledged to donate 130 million doses and is supporting clinical trials needed before the medicine, which U.S. President Donald Trump also has been promoting, can be approved for use against the coronavirus.

“Pre-clinical studies in animals as well as the first data from clinical studies show that hydroxychloroquine kills the coronavirus,” Narasimhan told Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung."

The French are on board as well.

“The French government has officially sanctioned prescriptions of chloroquine to treat certain coronavirus patients,” France 24 English reported Saturday.
“This ensures continued treatment of patients who have been treated for several years for a chronic condition with this drug, but also allows a temporary authorization to allow certain patients with coronavirus to benefit from this therapeutic route,” said Jérôme Salomon, France’s director general of health.
According to a report from Trustnodes, France’s move comes after infectious disease specialist Didier Raoult announced new clinical results… that show 78 out of 80 patients treated with chloroquine recovered within five days."

Oh, look the FDA...

"On Sunday night, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, drugs often used to treat malaria and recently touted by President Donald Trump as a possible “game-changer” in the fight against the China-originated novel coronavirus, or COVID-19.
The United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced in a statement on Sunday that the FDA will allow the drugs to be “donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be distributed and prescribed by doctors to hospitalized teen and adult patients with COVID-19, as appropriate, when a clinical trial is not available or feasible,” a Politico report said.
The statement noted that “Sandoz donated 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the stockpile and Bayer donated 1 million doses of chloroquine.”
Trump made it clear weeks ago that his administration would work to fast-track promising drugs like hydroxychloroquine with the FDA, all in an effort to combat COVID-19."

 Back to Cuomo

" Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is on the same page as President Trump when it comes to the popular anti-malaria drugs, permitting trials of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to commence in his state.  “Let’s see how it works,” Trump said Sunday, with regard to the New York trials. “It may. It may not.”



The New York Post reports:

"Two coronavirus patients in New York City are off ventilators and out of intensive care after they received an experimental drug to treat HIV and breast cancer.
[…]The drug, leronlimab, is delivered by injection twice in the abdomen, the Daily Mail reported.
Of seven critically ill patients who received the drug in New York, two were removed from ventilators and two showed significant improvement.
[…]CytoDyn, the drug’s manufacturer, could get FDA approval in six weeks if leronlimab continues to show promise. No drugs currently have FDA approval to treat the novel coronavirus."

So, will be be hearing or seeing all the folks who said Trump had blood on his hands retracting and apologizing?   Will we see the acknowledgement that Trump is following the advice of doctors and scientists and that by cutting the FDA red tape might actually lead to lives saved?   Will we see all the people decrying Trump's comments about being open by Easter, admit that they were wrong?  (Remember, they weren't criticizing the timeline, they were criticizing him for not following the advice of experts)  FYI, I personally think the new deadline is too much and am hoping that he'll be willing to pull it back if circumstances warrant. 

I think I know the answers to these questions, and I hope I'm wrong.  I really hope that the media gets away from pushing a narrative, starts reporting the news, and admits that they were wrong.



It's easier to post the one link to WK's post, which contains multiple links to sources for this, so here it goes.


 https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/07/so-much-good-news-in-the-battle-against-the-chinese-wuhan-virus/


Here is my question.   If Chloroquine and/or Zithromax have any prophylactic effect at all, wouldn't it be cheaper to prescribe a course to everyone in the country and start lifting all the quarantine restrictions?

Since Dan is obsessed

"I BELIEVE that a progressive, Christian, welcoming, grace and justice-oriented worldview best explains the world we live in."


With the acknowledgement that you've jumped multiple steps ahead of the discussion I was trying to have, I'll put your Truth claim to the test.

If the worldview you just espoused is the best at explaining the world we live in, how does it explain the following?

The transition from the absolute existence of nothing to the existence of all of the matter in the universe in an instant?

The origin of the vast amounts of information encoded into our DNA?

The fine tuned nature of the universe?

A natural order based on the survival of the fittest?


Anything other than a clear, direct, specific, answer to the question exactly as asked will end up somewhere else.  The only questions I will answer on this thread are questions asked to clarify specific aspects of the questions asked, do not expect answers to anything else.  This is your opportunity to prove how well your worldview aligns with the world we live in.  Do you your inability to stop jumping ahead, my usual rule of posting all of your comments might be suspended for this post.

Clearly there’s a comprehension problem

Due to a conflict between my promise to post Dan’s comments, as opposed to his random deletions of comments, and my desire to focus one particular post on the specific topic of that particular post I’ll be copying his off topic, and or expletive filled rants here.

Dan TrabueMarch 29, 2020 at 8:28 AM
A sampling of the many things you all THINK I think but you're mistaken about...

Craig... I'm going to start be questioning the assumption that the goal of morality is to "find common ground".  

This is not anything I've said. What I HAVE said is that it helps us as a society to find common ground on questions of morality. Thus, one goal of a SOCIETY is to find common ground on morality, or what rules we will live by. Is slavery okay? Can I rape "slutty" women (as Marshal and rapists call them)? How about taking things that don't belong to me, is that okay?

Societies HAVE to find some common ground on rules, which is to say, morality, because otherwise, we'd have a hellish anarchy.

1. Do you disagree with what I'm ACTUALLY saying?

Marshal... The entire quote was an attempt by Dan to dodge the initial question of how he determines an objective morality.

It is not. You're just factually mistaken. There is NO dodge and I clearly DO strive to determine morality. BUT, we can't objectively prove our opinions about morality as an objective fact. I DO recognize that reality. And it is reality. If it's not, you all are welcome to prove objectively your opinions about morality are objectively factual.

2. Craig, at one point at least, acknowledged that his opinions are not facts, they are his opinions on morality. Do you still affirm that, Craig? Because you appear to waffle back and forth on the question.

3. Marshal, if you can PROVE objectively your opinions about morality are objective facts, please do so.

Marshal... a morality that exists regardless of whether or not we do.

I do, too. You keep acting like I don't, but I've been quite clear on the point.

4. Do you recognize that reality?

Craig... Those preconceptions include his assertions that various things “can’t” be proven and that there certain things that can’t be know with any certainty.

Craig, I would LOVE if you can prove your opinions about morality are objectively provably factually correct. Even if it's contrary to something I believe in currently. Why? Because I value morality and want to be moral.

5. Can you objectively prove your opinions on morality are authoritatively objectively factually correct?

6. If so, please do so. IF NOT, please admit it clearly. Stop waffling (I don't view such waffling to be very moral.

More...
ReplyDelete



Dan TrabueMarch 29, 2020 at 8:28 AM
Craig... Unfortunately he doesn’t start be asking what is True. He acknowledges that some sort of Truth exists, but that it’s absolutely impossible for us to know that Truth.

Bullshit. This is utterly ridiculous vomit.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO KNOW TRUTH. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.

7. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?

Rather, I have said that much about morality is SELF-EVIDENT and ABUNDANTLY CLEAR and JUST NOT THAT DAMNED DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, and certainly not as difficult as you all appear to think it is.

8. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?

I DO ASK THE QUESTION, "WHAT IS TRUE?" and do so regularly.

9. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?

I've just noted the reality that, no matter how self-evident and relatively clear it is, we can't PROVE AS AN OBJECTIVE FACT that your opinions about moral questions are authoritatively objectively factual.

There is a difference between ABUNDANTLY CLEAR and OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE.

An increasing majority of the world thinks it is abundantly clear that gay and lesbian folk marrying is a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all. However, in spite of that abundance of clarity, some Muslims and Christians would still think it's okay to jail or kill or outlaw such activity, because they hold a contrary opinion. BUT the opinion that Marshal and some extremist Muslims hold that it is NOT immoral to kill people for adultery or homosexuality is not a provable one. Indeed, it is a great immoral atrocity and that much is clear. Just not provable.

10. Craig, do you agree with Marshal that it's NOT a great immorality to kill adulterers and people engaged in homosexual acts or do you agree with me that this would be a great immoral atrocity?

Ten questions that will almost certainly go ignored.

Especially the one about SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM IF you are going to claim that you can objectively prove your opinions about morality.
ReplyDelete





Dan TrabueMarch 29, 2020 at 9:05 AM
Look, it seems like we're having two different conversations, here.

One (yours in your post here) is that there are some Truths that are better than others and that some Truths (and sets of morality) will clash and disagree and even "exclude others..." That is without a doubt, true and factual.

Of course I think some Truths and morality are better than others. I disagree with you all (conservatives) regularly because I think the Truths and morals that I'm advocating are stronger, better, more ideal than yours and that, in some cases, your truths and morals are just bad/wrong.

Marshal, for instance, can not condemn the idea of killing adulterers or those engaged in homosexual acts as a great immorality. I find such a set of Truths that would allow him to consider such atrocities a potentially moral action (or at least that would render him unable to say it is immoral) is a pathetic "truth" system and one in conflict with basic decency and valuing human rights. Some extremists in other nations even support jailing gay folk or killing them. Of course, I find such "truth systems" and values to be reprehensible and immoral.

Maybe you do, too, Craig? Feel free to take a stand.

The point is, if the question is, Do some philosophies and religions have "bad Truths" and morals? The answer is yes and we are almost certainly all in agreement there.

Am I right?

So, when you're arguing that some philosophies/religions are worse than others, you're not arguing against anything I'm saying.

The SECOND argument (what I've been talking about) are what rules do we have in a diverse culture and what is the basis for those rules?

I'm saying (going back to your argument here) that some religions and philosophies - especially the ones who think they hold "objective truths" and who think that their god would encourage denying rights to some people and think they are objectively "right" to think this - are NOT a good basis for determining morality in the public space. I'm saying that the best criteria/guidelines for establishing common rules in a diverse society is the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Human Rights criteria.

Do you disagree?