Reporter for Dallas paper brings up the beer for sale at SFOT issue.

Carrie M. said:
Stop it, now that's just hot... :)

I've always theorized that humans are genetically predisposed to like the same color. It's just that we all see differently and have agreed upon the labels, thus we end up liking the different labels, but still technically all prefer the same color.

You want me. :)

You need to take a college philosophy class. That's my opinion. :)

Ha! Your opinion is stupid. ;)

Why are they not going after chuck e cheese as well? They serve beer. This is just crazy.

Almost every amusement park I have been to serves beer. I don't have a problem with it.

mlnem4s said:
Does anyone else stop to think that for as far as we have come in American society we still have so far to go?

I find it incredibly ironic that the United States labels itself "the land of the free" or "the greatest nation on Earth" and Americans extoll the virtues of "freedom, freedom, freedom" yet at every turn we still face ignorance, bigotry, prejudice and those who want to take our god given rights away, such as this topic example. There is a significant, though not majority, group of religious people who will stop at nothing to "purify" the country of all "they deem evil." Yet who are they to make such determinations? Even worse, who are they to say that African Americans or Latinos or Asians or GLBT individuals or even someone who wants to enjoy a glass of wine or beer do not have a rightful place in this society? How does one become a self-annointed disciple to determine how the lives of others will be conducted or who can and cannot be included in this society?

I have researched this a lot out of my frustration over how things are going in the United States and honestly, I have discovered places like the Netherlands, for example, who equal the USA (if not beat it) in measurables such as quality of life, health, education, job growth, very low unemployment, etc. I dare say it is time for some people, such as the blog poster in this topic, to take their head out of the sand and "get real."

I think it's a pretty big assumption to say that because a person is for or against one thing, that you can tell everything they are for or against. I didn't see any mention of religion, ethnicity, sexuality in the person's comment, so I fail to see how you know what the poster's opinion is on all these other subjects. I know of non-religious people who are against alcohol consumption. I know of black people and congregations who speak out against alcohol. Perhaps the person knows someone who was killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. But honestly, the poster doesn't say she's against all alcohol, just against serving alcohol in the park.

Frankly, I would say liberal and leftist extemists spew as much venom and hate toward groups they don't like, along with the accompanying assumptions, and calls for government action to limit their freedoms.

To make this an exclusive concern of white, redneck, conservative, religious fanatics is a big reach. I don't know how many people cared to look, but the name of the person who submitted the letter to the editor is Emma Flores. Sounds Latino to me, or at least tolerant enough to marry one.

Gonch said: You want me. :)

Heh, about as much as you want me. :)

RatherGoodBear said: I think it's a pretty big assumption to say that because a person is for or against one thing, that you can tell everything they are for or against. I didn't see any mention of religion, ethnicity, sexuality in the person's comment, so I fail to see how you know what the poster's opinion is on all these other subjects.

I completely agree and also think it's a big stretch to assume that based on this blog, the person must be calling for prohibition laws. There's nothing in it to suggest that. She's merely asking her peers, the readers, to think about something differently. There's no fault in that even if you disagree with her.

mlnem4s said:
It is my understanding that the Constitution, in part, protects minorities from such oppression, no?

The concept of rights only has significance with respect to the minority. As already noted, the majority doesn't need rights because it gets to do what it wants (subject to the rights of the minority).

Historically we have ferreted out the stupid ideas through the free market of ideas/debate/discussion. But in the end, under our system of government, the majority rules. So if the majority wants to do something stupid/harmful, thats pretty much what we are going to do unless it somehow is found to violate the rights of the minority who didn't support it. Thats the system that we all signed up for (or at least for the majority of us, were born into).

Carrie M. said:
Heh, about as much as you want me. :)

Uh-oh.

:)

Gonch, are you saying that nothing is right or wrong, just majority and minority? Like 2+2=4 only because the majority says so?

Some things just are not subject to opinions. If I take what we call "two" of an object and place them next to another "two" of that object, there really is nothing to have an opinion about in terms of how many of those objects I have. We can decide to call that result whatever we want and there can be opinions as to what we should call it. But there is no opinion to be had as to how many are there.

To me that is a lot different than saying there are different opinions on whether folks should be able to drink at amusement parks.

Same with colors, which have quantifiable, unique wavelengths.

So the color of grass isn't subject to an opinion either (at least not in terms of wavelengths). What we should call any given quantifiable, unique wavelength is though. And I suppose what constitutes "grass" is also subject to an opinion. And it all depends on what the meaning of is is. :)

Ha! And yes, the moniker for any given quantity (be it a certain color's wavelength, or simply a quantity) can be anything we want it to be. That doesn't mean four apples can be considered five, or that a red light was actually green.

ApolloAndy said:
Gonch, are you saying that nothing is right or wrong, just majority and minority?

I'm saying we decide what right and wrong is.

GoBucks89 said:
Some things just are not subject to opinions. If I take what we call "two" of an object and place them next to another "two" of that object, there really is nothing to have an opinion about in terms of how many of those objects I have. We can decide to call that result whatever we want and there can be opinions as to what we should call it. But there is no opinion to be had as to how many are there.

Unless, of course, you perceive things differently than a human. Then who knows?

Certainly not I. I'm suck with the same limitations as the rest of you. :)

So the color of grass isn't subject to an opinion either (at least not in terms of wavelengths).

Yes, within the confines of current human abilities and talking in terms of wavelength.

But a few hundred years ago the Earth was flat too. :)

Lord Gonchar said:
Unless, of course, you perceive things differently than a human. Then who knows?

Are you suggesting that two of something is not always two of something? That it is sometimes more or less?

Yes, within the confines of current human abilities and talking in terms of wavelength.

Humans do not have the ability to see wavelengths, just as we do not have the ability to see infrared, etc. We use tools to "see" those things. As such, we're already looking at them beyond the confines of our abilities.

As much as there are many things open to personal interpretation, math is absolutely not one of them (and math is the basis for the measurement of wavelength).

djDaemon said:
And yes, the moniker for any given quantity (be it a certain color's wavelength, or simply a quantity) can be anything we want it to be. That doesn't mean four apples can be considered five, or that a red light was actually green.

Well, yeah it sort of does. If we had decided to use the label "five" where we now use "four" - then four apples would indeed be considered five.

Which was kind of my original point. Calling it five makes you wrong because we've agreed that that many things is 'four' of them.

Then you guys tried to take it further. (and I played along :) )

Are you suggesting that two of something is not always two of something? That it is sometimes more or less?

I'm suggesting that human ability to perceive may not be the only way to perceive.

Humans do not have the ability to see wavelengths, just as we do not have the ability to see infrared, etc. We use tools to "see" those things. As such, we're already looking at them beyond the confines of our abilities.

Who created those tools?

They were created within the confines of our abilities to work on our levels of perception.

It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

But in all seriousness, I believe that there are some things which are right and wrong objectively. There are some things which are gray area and which maybe are best left to the majority or the elite or the duly appointed officials to decide, but I really believe there are some things that are just right and some things that are just wrong regardless of context, background, opinion, or majority rule. (And yeah, I'm sure if I tried to articulate them succinctly, you could come up with counter examples, but the point remains.)

Hang on a second. Wavelengths are not the only component to color definition. I'm pretty sure the eye, light, and general brain processing are also involved. It's in those ways that the element of perception comes into play and therefore color definitions are negotiable.

The basis of this debate was always about opinion. And there are no absolutes when it comes to opinion. But to suggest that "person's stated opinion does not necessarily equal absolute truth or definitive belief systems" also means "that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4" is just plain silly.

Besides, we all know 2 + 2 = 22. ;)

ApolloAndy said:
I really believe there are some things that are just right and some things that are just wrong regardless of context, background, opinion, or majority rule.

I'm pretty sure I don't.

I guess we just perceive things differently. ;)