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

^^Well, except that it's very hard to say what statements are opinion and what statements are fact and have a definite true/false value. (Besides, Gonch decided to play Devil's Advocate).

Evolution and Global warming for instance are considered by many to be in the realm of opinion and by many others to be in the realm of fact. Gonch seems to believe the statment "It is wrong to enslave another human being" would be an opinion rather than an accepted truth if the south had won the war. Some might have "an opinion" about other people and their relative rights. Others might have "an opinion" about colors or about the answer to the question 2+2.

Lord Gonchar said:

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. ;)

You are objectively wrong. ;)

True, but "it's wrong to...(put whatever you want here)" is still an opinion. When you get into math and science, things get a little more gray (pun intended). But even then as Gonch pointed out, there was indeed a time when everyone believed the world was flat. So even science and math continues to evolve in definition... we just replace one fact with another fact when it comes to math and science, I guess. :)

Rights and wrongs are judgments. Someone must decide which is which. You can argue the correct method to do so (e.g. majority rule, civic best, religious doctrine, etc), but in the end a judgment is always made. There is not one absolute truth.

Lord Gonchar said: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.

Well, you're talking about labels. I'm talking about the actual quantity. Imagine a quantity of something being represented by an equivalent number of dots - that's how math is truly universal, and not open to interpretation.

Carrie M. said:
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.

I think we're confusing our terms here.

Color is light that falls within the visible spectrum of humans. Different colors have different frequencies and wavelengths that are quantifiable. Sure, we can choose to call light that falls within a certain frequency and wavelength range whatever we like, but their values do not change. The brain or eye may have a disability that alters how that particular light is perceived by an individual, but again, the frequency and wavelength do not change.

If we're talking about definitions like "orange", then yes, you can use whatever definition you like - this is a qualitative definition. But if we're talking about spectral analysis of light, you cannot ascribe random values based on human perception, because these characteristics are quantitatively defined.

Andy -- You are a moral absolutist (at least with respect to some things). I am a moral absolutist on an incredibly small number of issues (in reality approaching, if not at, none). Guess that makes me a moral relativist. At least in my opinion. :)

And I do agree that its strange to see how we got from someone expressing an opinion on whether alcohol should be sold in an amusement park to whether 2+2+4 is an opinion. Though that does remind of an an old accountants joke: A company was looking to hire a new accounting firm and interviewed three firms in the process. The CEO asked the representative from each firm, "how much is 2+2." The first two answered 4. The third rep said "whatever you want it to be" and was hired.

djDaemon said:

I think we're confusing our terms here.

Color is light that falls within the visible spectrum of humans. Different colors have different frequencies and wavelengths that are quantifiable. Sure, we can choose to call light that falls within a certain frequency and wavelength range whatever we like, but their values do not change. The brain or eye may have a disability that alters how that particular light is perceived by an individual, but again, the frequency and wavelength do not change.

If we're talking about definitions like "orange", then yes, you can use whatever definition you like - this is a qualitative definition. But if we're talking about spectral analysis of light, you cannot ascribe random values based on human perception, because these characteristics are quantitatively defined.

I'm not talking about the labels we assign colors. Colors are completely subjective in the way they are experienced. You have no idea what I see when I look at what you would consider the color green, regardless of the frequencies and wavelengths that make up the color. Frequencies and wavelengths are just one component of what makes color up, but they don't define them.

To me, it's similar (but not exactly) to suggesting that a pound of feathers is universally the same as a pound of rocks simply because both can be quantified by their weight. Those two things are still very different even if their weight can be universally measured.

Carrie M. said:
There is not one absolute truth.

Is this not an absolute statement? :-P

In general I am almost entirely a moral relativist, but I cannot bring myself to accept that there is *no* absolute truth whether it be in science, math, philosophy, religion, or morals. Whether we have it, will ever have it, or think we have it and don't, doesn't mean it's not out there. (I happen to believe we will never have it but can come increasingly close).

ApolloAndy said:
Whether we have it, will ever have it, or think we have it and don't, doesn't mean it's not out there. (I happen to believe we will never have it but can come increasingly close).

I happen to believe we grossly overestimate our own abilities in the big scheme of things.

As silly as the truth that the Earth was flat to humans a few centuries ago seems, our truths will seem just as silly to the people a few centuries from now.

And their truths to those who come centuries after them.

And so on.

Carrie M. said:
There is not one absolute truth.

Yes there is. I exist. My existence is an absolute truth.

Seriously, guys? That sentence was in the context of rights and wrongs. There was no paragraph break before that sentence.

Besides, you disguest me, Tekwardo. ;)

Am I the only one here who is not currently high?

"Hey man, what if C-A-T actually spells dog?"
"Whoa...."

I am rather diguesting. :)

Besides, I knew what you were saying, I was just picking (pretty sure Andy was too). I guess I should have put a winky there, but then what fun would that be?

So, Basically at this point, Andy is Locke (odd, I thought he'd be Jin or Miles! ;) ), You're Kate, Gonch is Jack, so I guess that makes me Sawyer?

Nah, I'm probably just Hurley :(.

Edit: Darn You kpjb! I was talking to Carrie obviously. And why aren't you high anyways?

If you are not sure who you are, how can you be so sure you absolutely exist?

kpjb said:
Am I the only one here who is not currently high?

No. You're the only one who is high.

Thats probably a matter of opinion too, no?

GoBucks89 said:
If you are not sure who you are, how can you be so sure you absolutely exist?

Well, I know I exist, but I can't be sure if I'm the hunky redneck who should take his shirt off every other page in the thread...or the overweight unlucky guy who likes Mr. Cluck's.

Although some would argue I may just be Ben...

So what about people with Synesthia?

How do the rules change once you're able to hear color?

It's alternate perception.

Or if you believe some of the theories in that article, a level of perception we lose as we mature.

After reading all this, I've come to the conclusion that I need a beer.
And that's the truth.

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

Well, 2+2 does equal 5.

(for very large values of 2) ;)

My Mother has been able to hear colors among other sensory mix-ups. I find it intriguing.

I wrote a song, many, many years ago, called "1+1=11". It was about how I, at the time, didn't believe that I should accept for no reason that everything I have learned throughout life is a fact. I wish I could find those lyrics. :(

As long as alcohol is not abused, I have no problem with it being consumed in public, kid or no kids. That's what the security staff is for.