Its a self referential statement so poorly formed that its veracity is unexamineable. .

One might not expect a very thougbtful person to be behind a username like beastforever. Maybe you should pick a user name like hardcoremuthafucka :)

Agreed, But I think even scientifically tested and corroborated assesments of all kinds are subjective by nature. What about thinking of information as "adequate vs inadequate"rather than "entirely correct vs entirely incorrect" ? can you see how the former doesn't pretend escaped subjectivity and avoids dogmatic absolutism?

what if we thought in terms of "convincing vs unconvincing" instead of "true vs false"?

Welcome to CreateDebate! Hope we can have some productive disagreements :)

Then why not also execute perpetrators of simple assault?

I am trying to figure out why people are more apalled by rape than other types of harmful assaults. You say rapists should " be thrown in a whole, never to be heard from again". Do you think simple assault should carry just as harsh of a punishment? if not, why not?

To speak in a "politically correct" manner is to avoid culturally taboo statements that would result in more or less severe social consequences. Take for example Sam Harris. He talks about racial superiority in a manner that is sufficiently "politically correct" so you don't see a full scale character assasination effort being unleashed on him.

Do you now understand what politically correct means?

Since you say "It has nothing to do with sex at all. It is violence." I assume that you believe that someone who has committed assault with bodily injury should have the same restrictions that you think would be appropriate for a rapist right?

What about someone who just physically attacks someone for merely verbally insulting them. They break bones which require hospitalization. Do you think this type of assault merits the same severity of punishment that rape does? if not why not?

I think in general you have a good point. here, I think its worth making even more explicitly..

It's there. It is a static object

I struggled in vain to conceptualize truth as a static object.

that often doesn't get seen from all sides depending on the position of the person viewing it.

coceptually though, it usually connotes a completeness or perfectness of the relevant knowledge does it not?

But I don't think the concept of it is bad

I used "good" and "bad" mainly to make the the debate more provocative. My current opinion is that it's fine and good as an ideal to be pursued but gravely troublesome when considered attained.

What could possibly be wrong with say, a school teacher who reolves to strictly convey to their students only known verified facts?

Do you avoid all animal products in your diet, or just those that involve slaughter?

I think it is the amount of eating required to satisfy my appetite and keep from losing weight coupled with an intense craving for meat if I go without.

Is it any kind of physical assault that you believe renders someone morally irredeemable or just sexual assault?

In your cultural finger pointing debate what are you asking? It's really unclear.

Think of how anti-american extremism has come to be such a problem... Instead of keeping focus on specific people in america who IN SPITE OF the basic goodness of our culture, do terrible things. They blame the intrinsic nature of our culture and spread the idea that as a whole we are fundamentally a beligerent violence prone society. Conversely we americans have our own problem with demagogues doing the same thing. It's a vicious cycle that begets increasing levels of violent extremism. It's what I call cultural fingerpointing and we have our share of morons here in the US who try to present it as a morally courageous defense of free speech ala Being brave enough to "name the enemy".

A pride that would be severly misplaced if not shared by other members of the community

Not trying to offend, but the above is a poorly phrased argument.

http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

(An example of a theory that's not widely accepted due to such grounds)

That first comment really threw me off. I see, you are acknowledging that because of entrenched dogmatic certitude (supposed possesion of truth) within certain scientific communities, there are new possibly helpful insights that get pushed aside. Right?

It is full confidence (not leaving room for doubt) that makes our concept of truth or facts so dangerous. It is (I think) why the scientific method is peculiarly different from other technologies. Most essentially it's about seeking to falsify theories, to find imperfections in what should I argue be assumed to be incomplete knowledge, not "facts" or "truths"

I think children with different temperaments require variant approaches. Some children simply need to be allowed to follow their innate curiousity where others need more structure and discipline or they will end up seriously underdeveloped. I am sure our systematic cookie cutter approach is nowhere near flexible enough, and stoking kids innate curiosity is nowhere near the priority it should be.

Learning needs to be part of how we live..all day everyday.

I guess in a sense you could say I am progressive. I don't support this kind of thing..hth

So which Islamic sect do you think is most peaceful or least pernicious?

One day a buzzard puked on the doorstep, I hatched from a glob therein. The rest is a mystery.

I am pretty certain that no one knows even close to every cause necessary to my hatching,

I doubt that there is anything that doesn't have anything to do with anything else at least in some mysterious way.