Glad to know that you're not a feminist apologist.
Yes, you communicate like a liberal.
Oh? ...then you are a liberal.
I thought you had more to bring to the table than these vacuous comments and I am, with respect, disappointed that someone who professes an interest in critical thinking would choose to deliver rote rather than analysis. It seems I was mistaken as to your capacity and intent.
No, truth is not malleable. It isn't putty that can reshaped to fit someone's beliefs. Just because you may believe something to be true doesn't mean it is factually true.
So who, then, is the arbiter of 'truth' when a dispute as to the truth arises in metaphysical debates (as opposed to non contentious issues such as one plus one equalling two)? I'm looking for something other than "you're a liberal, I'm not, so I don't need to argue anything because being non-liberal means I'm always right" and would prefer you opting out of the discussion if that's all you can come up with mate.
Would it make you feel better if I said that to me, truth is subjective, however in finding the truth, my beliefs, no matter how strong, will be held subservient to facts which I subjectively believe to be objective and therefore plausible as being true in fact? If you pick that sentence apart you'll see I've posited some aspects of my 'truth' rationale outside of the liberal paradigm to which you ascribe me. What do your philosophical studies arm you with when faced with a person or situation that does not precisely match a political/philosophical mantra?
A lawyer tried to talk to me like that once but I escorted him out of my office. What gobblygook. There are facts and there is bullcrap. I'm a proponent of facts.
Why would you escort your lawyer out of your office when it seems that lawyer presented you with a prime opportunity to exercise your critical thought by having a face to face discussion involving, as it would seem, all the topics you show an interest and expertise in?
If you didn't understand the point I was making then ask for an explanation in more simplistic terms rather than discounting it as gobblygook. It seems that again you misconceive or don't apprehend what I was saying because I was speaking of 'truths' (not facts, which are foundations for truth to be determined upon) and trying to challenge your notions of same.
Murder is plain wrong; no 'ifs' about it. Trying to spin it in some way only diminishes the person attempting to do so.
Again, I agree. There were no 'ifs' in what I was saying nor was I trying to spin it, and I thought that that was fairly clear to someone who seems to have capacity to discuss these types of issues. You asked me to look at it in subjective terms and I did. Relative to me, it is wrong. Subjectively speaking, it is wrong. I did what you asked and still you argue against my though processes as though you know what I think more than I do?!
Self defense is not murder.
How on earth did you come up with that comment in answer to the words you quoted me on? I challenged the basis to which you asked me to respond by presenting you with clear contra-indicators (it should have been objective cf subjective because self defence is objectively tested) to your premise being the correct one.
I know it's not murder, you know it, so why point out the obvious? Hang on though. You're trying to catch me out here aren't you. Are you trying to say that if 'self defence' is established objectively, it is a complete defence, and the act of murder cannot have been committed by virtue of it being a complete defence to the charge? Or are you saying that self defence, as a defence to such charge, is a factor in mitigation which does not contain a complete defence but serves to ameliorate the harshness of a penalty for murder in those circumstances?
Yes you are wrong and no, your 'relative' style of discourse doesn't reach a level which tests me.
I thought I was fairly correct, but if you say otherwise could you please pick my assumptions apart and tell me where I've erred so I can save myself the embarrrassment of being wrong again?
Just google or yahoo him.
No thanks - I'd much prefer to hear your take on what he says - it is a forum after all.
I'm still out in 'God's country' so my retorts, which are not ambiguous like yours, will be few until I get back.
No problem. I like the way you threw in the self serving 'my posts are better than yours because yours are ambiguous' at the end. Forgive me for self indulging, but it's been my epxerience that those types of comments usually mean the person making them feels like they're coming second.