The Never Ending Story

[2dimes]

I don't think there should be a problem if someone wants to pretend they are the opposite gender. I certainly don't mind someone being or feeling like they are different. I only see a problem with them trying to force others to reject physical reality.

I understand though. There are bullies that will treat a person very badly just because they want to wear fancy clothes. That's just wrong.

[warmonger1981]

I don't think there should be a problem if someone wants to pretend they are the opposite gender. I certainly don't mind someone being or feeling like they are different. I only see a problem with them trying to force others to reject physical reality.

I understand though. There are bullies that will treat a person very badly just because they want to wear fancy clothes. That's just wrong.

I'm not a person to cast judgment or to throw stones. I have a problem with someone who perceives reality different than me and then force me to accept their perception. There's a person out there who actually believes they're a cat. Am I now supposed to call them a cat when they're actually human? Reality is subjective nowadays. Welcome to 1984.

[DoomYoshi]

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

[warmonger1981]

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

Science is only relative to understanding. Just as the Big Bang will be found not to be the beginning as much as death will be found not to be the end. Humanity cannot function unless it has a common understanding of basic natural laws. these fundamental laws are now being turned upside down. thus the beginning of the end.

[riskllama]

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

doesn't the bible say "honour thy father & mother", or some shit like that, DY???

[Dukasaur]

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

What is this "believe in" science shit? Science isn't some phantasm that depends on belief or disbelief. Science is a methodology for looking at the world and trying to figure it out.

Objectivism has ceased to be a mandatory part of science at least since the Uncertainty Principle, but in any case the whole subjectivist/objectivist debate is so much hot air. Like all of epistemology, it's fun stuff for a drunken debate in the university pub, but has no practical consequence. If a freight train is hurtling at me, it makes no difference if it's objectively real or if it's a durable figment of my imagination. Either way, I'll be dead if I don't get out of the way. Only tangible consequences matter.

[DoomYoshi]

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

doesn't the bible say "honour thy father & mother", or some shit like that, DY???

Yes, in Matthew 10:35.

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

What is this "believe in" science shit? Science isn't some phantasm that depends on belief or disbelief. Science is a methodology for looking at the world and trying to figure it out.

Objectivism has ceased to be a mandatory part of science at least since the Uncertainty Principle, but in any case the whole subjectivist/objectivist debate is so much hot air. Like all of epistemology, it's fun stuff for a drunken debate in the university pub, but has no practical consequence. If a freight train is hurtling at me, it makes no difference if it's objectively real or if it's a durable figment of my imagination. Either way, I'll be dead if I don't get out of the way. Only tangible consequences matter.

It does matter though. Most arguments are started with somebody trying to defend their "objectivity". By holding a belief, they wouldn't want it to be sullied by the name of "subjective", so they first convince themselves that it is objective, and then they try to convince others. 95% of all conversations are people discussing subjective things in an objective worldview. Humanity as a whole needs to embrace subjectivity again.

One example of a weakness in our Western worldview is that metaphors are treated as less accurate than facts. "Russia is a bear" is a far better statement than "Russia is 17 million square kilometers". Only one of those statements are included in geography texts, and that's the curse of objectivity. Objectivists are the worst people who try to strip Russia of its bear necessities and turn the metaphor into a series of propositional truths. A metaphor is not the sum of its propositional truths. e.g. Russia is a big, gay, hairy, man; Russia craps in the woods; Russia is strong - these are all accurate images that come from the metaphor. The metaphor is not merely one of those statements, nor is it the sum of all of them. Metaphors are purely subjective truth. There isn't any objective basis whatsoever. There is no such thing as Russia (that's just an arbitrary border) and there is no such thing as bears (that's just an arbitrary clade, plus some pandas). Yet it still speaks volumes. You can understand what I mean because our brains both work the same way. We take a continuous stream of data and try to break it up into discrete chunks. That's an inherently subjective process. Therefore, all reality is subjective, at least as far as I can perceive it.

[warmonger1981]

3 Titans entered the arena.







Only DoomYoshi walks out victorious.

[2dimes]

I can't remember the bible anymore. Does it say, "Where the bear and the eagle meet, that is the valley of Armageddon." somewhere?

Good luck with the trains DY.

[HitRed]

The Rail Yard of Armageddon

[2dimes]

How did you find that picture? Where is it from? What's in those hoppers? Do you have any toy trains? I love HO train cars but they became noticeably more expensive since I started buying them probably over ten years ago.

[HitRed]

How did you find that picture? Where is it from? What's in those hoppers? Do you have any toy trains? I love HO train cars but they became noticeably more expensive since I started buying them probably over ten years ago.

First, I'm from Illinois which some claim is the train watching capital of the world.

Second, plywood sheets owned my garage growing up. Mostly HO Santa Fe trains.

My cousin is the vice president at Norfolk Southern true

Stock Photo is N&W RR 1961 Marshalling Yard

[tzor]

There are deeper meanings to the Hobbit? If anything it's seemed more shallow...

There are a number of deep things in The Hobbit, although it wasn't originally designed to be exceptionally deep. (That comes later in the general Trilogy and shows up in his other writings which were later published by his son Christopher.) Never the less, the war of the five armies, at the end of the novel is somewhat deep in its own way, showing the effects of what happens when the big bad guy with all the treasure is eliminated. Friends become enemies and then turn back into friends as other enemies gather around.

The deepest things were the writings later published by Christopher, especially the Silmarillion. Both the world creation story and the creation of the Dwarves have deep symbolic meanings.

[tzor]

How did you find that picture? Where is it from? What's in those hoppers? Do you have any toy trains? I love HO train cars but they became noticeably more expensive since I started buying them probably over ten years ago.

HO? How quaint. I started out with Lionel shortened "O" scale. (The trains where shorter than would be otherwise expected for the scale in order to allow a tighter turn radius. They are typically defined by the scale followed by the turn radius. (O-27)) I used to read magazines about how people had simple circular tracks in their garage with special sections that could lift up so they could get to the interior.

In college we had a simple HO scale layout of the Hudson River line that stretched almost the entire length of the dorm on the basement level. That was mostly linear and had a couple of cities along the way.

Looking at that photo, I can't see any implementation larger than N scale.

For those who have no idea what I am talking about; here is a scale size comparison.

Click image to enlarge.

[2dimes]

I think it was full scale.

[tzor]

I was talking about the scale you would need to reasonably place a model of the size of the rail yard pictured.

[2dimes]

That depends on your budget.

[DoomYoshi]

[Dukasaur]

And then there is that "dragon." Honestly it's a long necked flying dog. It's just wrong ... Nice character and everything but even for the 80's it's just bad all around.

That will make a great follow-up name for the forum...

Jan 16th, '19, 16:52

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Objectivism has ceased to be a mandatory part of science at least since the Uncertainty Principle

I'll take "Misunderstood Pop-Science" for a thousand, Alex.

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

doesn't the bible say "honour thy father & mother", or some shit like that, DY???

Yes, in Matthew 10:35.

Reality has always been subjective. Objectivism was invented in the 18th century and then rejected in the 19th century. That's why I don't understand people like Dukasaur and waauw who pretend to only believe science, which is the modern day stand-in for objectivism.

What is this "believe in" science shit? Science isn't some phantasm that depends on belief or disbelief. Science is a methodology for looking at the world and trying to figure it out.

Objectivism has ceased to be a mandatory part of science at least since the Uncertainty Principle, but in any case the whole subjectivist/objectivist debate is so much hot air. Like all of epistemology, it's fun stuff for a drunken debate in the university pub, but has no practical consequence. If a freight train is hurtling at me, it makes no difference if it's objectively real or if it's a durable figment of my imagination. Either way, I'll be dead if I don't get out of the way. Only tangible consequences matter.

It does matter though. Most arguments are started with somebody trying to defend their "objectivity". By holding a belief, they wouldn't want it to be sullied by the name of "subjective", so they first convince themselves that it is objective, and then they try to convince others. 95% of all conversations are people discussing subjective things in an objective worldview. Humanity as a whole needs to embrace subjectivity again.

One example of a weakness in our Western worldview is that metaphors are treated as less accurate than facts. "Russia is a bear" is a far better statement than "Russia is 17 million square kilometers". Only one of those statements are included in geography texts, and that's the curse of objectivity. Objectivists are the worst people who try to strip Russia of its bear necessities and turn the metaphor into a series of propositional truths. A metaphor is not the sum of its propositional truths. e.g. Russia is a big, gay, hairy, man; Russia craps in the woods; Russia is strong - these are all accurate images that come from the metaphor. The metaphor is not merely one of those statements, nor is it the sum of all of them. Metaphors are purely subjective truth. There isn't any objective basis whatsoever. There is no such thing as Russia (that's just an arbitrary border) and there is no such thing as bears (that's just an arbitrary clade, plus some pandas). Yet it still speaks volumes. You can understand what I mean because our brains both work the same way. We take a continuous stream of data and try to break it up into discrete chunks. That's an inherently subjective process. Therefore, all reality is subjective, at least as far as I can perceive it.

And what is that continuous stream of data but objectivity? Or rather, the reality which an objective philosophy attempts to describe.