Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
No, that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is you're arguing against the existence of an objective reality. Which is one of the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia, by the way.
YouTube - There Are Four Lights |
I have been in self treatment for a number of years. I have been making progress, however I have been questioning the qualifications of my mental health care provider lately. I think I am going to start self treatments with someone else. Someone more qualified.
---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Before we do, just for my own edification, you believe that homosexuals are real, right? You understand (note: I didn't say "believe") that some men are sexually attracted to men and some women are sexually attracted to women?
|
I don't understand it. I accept it.
I understand my sexuality.
Quote:
I'm colorblind, oddly enough. I have trouble with certain hues of blue and purple, and certain reds and greens. According to my doctor, there are some colors that the average person can see that I can't, and there are probably some colors that I see that other people can't. Here's the thing, though: the actual color can be objectively verified. (I've actually done this before) All I have to do is take a photograph with a good camera, upload the picture to your computer, open it in an illustration program and then use the sample tool. The sample tool then shows you where on the color palate the color is located. It's an independent and verifiable method of determining color that I can trust.
I know this just seems like I'm skirting your illustration, but I'm trying to illustrate something myself: many things in our lives can be independently verified to a high degree of likelihood through deduction and use of methodology that's been developing for thousands of years and will only continue to be more precise and reliable. One can discover, through such methodology, the most likely reality in a given situation. Reality isn't purely subjective, if you don't believe me, take a picture of something, move it to your computer, and verify it's color.
Threat might be subjective to a point, but eventually it can become something most people agree on. If I have a gun in your face and am in the process of pulling the trigger, in that instant I suspect most if not all people would agree I'm a threat to your well being.
This isn't some abstract debate about god. This is about very real and objectively verifiable facts.
---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------
Again, this is objectively verifiable.
Federal Bureau of Investigation - What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
Considering the term weapon of mass destruction came from the government, the responsibility of defining it is theirs. Anyone that doesn't agree with this definition isn't holding a different opinion but an incorrect definition.
|
I am beyond my ability to communicate or explain this.
I do find it interesting that I have and continue to say that I may be wrong on some issues, like the Iraq "threat" question. I have stated my bias to error on the side of being overly defensive against any potential threat from Iraq, but you have never admitted that you could be wrong, or that you have a bias to error on the side of giving Iraq the benefit of the doubt.