fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2237 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2237 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 113 secrets from Secret Submission Post #319.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

When did telling someone that they made the wrong decision, or you think one of their beliefs is mistaken become the absolutely most abhorrent thing you could possibly do?

I don't know, man. But it is weird as hell. I mean, yes, there are certain things in which taste can't really be argued, but there's many more where it's weird as all hell. I really, really don't get the reaction of, like, "hdu tell me that you disagree with me" or whatever like it's some kind of crime.

Everyone is special which means every course of action is correct for them and must be respected which is why we can't suggest people with multiple personalities get help they're just living a different way

FFS don't start this again.

This T_T

Is this a resumption of the religion stuff from yesterday, or what?

When the idea developed that natural science is the best or the only way of coming to true knowledge (or, more precisely, when this idea came to maturity and its consequences had time to sink in). Natural science seems to be incapable of deciding on the best or the final ends for human beings, or the complete truth, or what is true in things which are not matter of fact accessible to the scientific method; ergo, there is no final and satisfactory way of determining what is better or worse for human beings; ergo, it is the subject of basically arbitrary choice, and it is wrong to attempt to criticize or judge the equally valid final ends of human beings, since all choices are equal.

If it's impossible to judge, then judgement itself is rendered worthless - meaning you can't launch a critique of judging someone because that in and of itself is a judgement.

This is like philosophy 101.

It's not a critique of judgment as such, it's a claim that judgment is impossible in one specific field - that judgment is impossible between the fundamental alternatives for human life or between the different principles or the different values which humans might choose. That critique is an assertion about the differing human value systems, but it is not a judgment of them as such. Hence the critique is not vulnerable to itself.

Person I was responding to was making an argument against knowable truth.

If they want to make a more specific tightly defined argument then that might take a different approach, but as of now they haven't.

It's all the same anon, to be clear.

I'm not advancing the argument myself, so much as saying that people believe this, or something like it. And the claim was never about the knowability of truth as such, but about "the best or the final ends for human beings, or the complete [that is to say, final and full] truth, or what is true in things which are not matters of fact accessible to the scientific method" - the non-existence of a way of determining finally "what is better or worse for human beings" in an ethical sense. Scientific truth is certainly still knowable from this point of view; even philosophic truth may be knowable to some extent. But the final correctness or validity of any human value system is not accessible to our reason from this point of view.

I didn't intend to make an argument against the knowability of truth in general, and if I was unclear, I apologize.

Trolololololo, lololololo, lololo.

I've no idea, but I'm more baffled by people who get RIDICULOUSLY OFFENDED if you happened to have made a different choice than they did. The stupid thing is that it's usually from people who use, "Well, MY choice..." to mean, "I think the choice you made was wrong and mine is superior," so whenever other people say, "This was the choice I made," in a non-passive-aggressive manner, they flip their shit like you just pissed on their mother's grave or something. And it's usually for things where my choice has no goddamn effect on their lives, so I have no clue why they fucking care so much.

Argh. But yes, Never Question People's Opinions because FREE SPEECH. That's all I've ever gotten out of those arguments.

MTE. As long as someone's choice isn't physically, mentally, financially, or emotionally harming others who cares. Live and let live.

...did I miss something big? I was too sleepy to hit GC last night.

[ SECRET POST #2237 ]

I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!

Re: I choose my choice!