There's Always Two Sides To A Story...

[.Marik]

That's a fact. What slightly irks me, is that most people are unable to grasp that concept due to ignorance.

There are always two sides to a story. No matter what field you are debating, it's there. Whether it be focused more on a humanitarian stance, or a religious aspect, I dislike when others bluntly treat a view they don't agree with as false.

Now, don't get me wrong, there may be certain traditional laws/morals that society has implemented, but in all actuality, who are they to claim whether it's false or truth? Whether it's right or wrong?

Now for obvious things, such as **** or murder, it doesn't take a lot of intellect to point it out as wrong, and politically incorrect.

But... religion, and sexual orientation. I will talk about it now.

Gays have always been persecuted. But how come? Usually, because of political/religious expectations. Now me personally, feel that gays have the right to marry. Who is it harming by allowing two individuals, no matter what their sexual orientation is, to be together? None, I say. But before people go all emotional about how "evil" conservatives are, just remember that the persecuters, no matter how far-fetched their claims may be, they still have a reason why they think, and believe what they believe. There is most likely a legitimate, valid reason which they feel they can back up their claims with...

So, we have two sides. Two different groups of people who automatically assume that their "side of the story", is correct, without bothering to hear out what the other side has to say, and the reason why, is a deluded sense of arrogance.

Same thing applies for other "important", yet trivial matters. Such as religious preferences, and the culture which is usually accustomed with it. Think of how many people have suffered, and lost their lives due to these immature groups of people thinking that they are somehow superior, because they are not part of a minority group.

Goverment is a big issue. They control everything, whether it be truth or propaganda. Some goverments are liberal, while others are totalitarianistic. Some allow human rights, while others strictly adhere to their moral and cultural code.

Protests, massacres, and wars have happened due to various reasons. Problems were encountered, people suffered, and stereotypes were created.

Sterotypes are another thing that burdens me. Why do they exist? Well remember, both sides have their reasons. While most of them are unjustly implemented, more often than not, there is a legitimate reason why they exist. Religion and Goverment are prime reasons. Usually, a small group of people literally control what the general populace believes in. And if they don't, either the political leaders suffer, or the people do. Either way, stereotypes exist.

I'm agnostic myself. I believe that we aren't advanced enough to determine whether or not one group of peoples' ideas and opinions are incorrect, or if they exist at all. Personally, I'm leaning more towards the scientific side, rather than the religious side of things. But can I ultimately say, and know what side is the truth? I don't think I can. I don't think anyone can. At least not yet. For the truth is probably complicated. Yes, I choose science, because of evidence and proof, but lets not forget, that the other "religious" side still have claims, and mentality that their Gods exist. So we ourselves cannot be arrogant to rule out their ideas as false, and they in return, must respect our decisions and ideas.

Unfortunately, many people can not seem to do this. Whether it be directed towards gays, blacks, different religious or political views, this is the many reasons why strife and distress occur in our world today. A lack of understanding amongst people, and arrogance.

Now, imagine if humans could actually co-exist peacefully with one another? While I accept the fact that this may never be, we as people, don't necessarily have to agree with ideas and opinions that we see unfit, but we can at least acknowledge them. Acknowledge that they exist, and respect other peoples feelings.

What a different world this would be if we could just accomplish this ever-so-tedious task. It's so simple, but then it's so complicated.

Your thoughts?

 

[t3h n00b]

Religion, one of the oldest motivating factors in society, very often unites large groups of people. The vast majority of religions themselves, while not often rooted in science, are straightforward and innocuous in nature.

In my opinion, the people that attempt to use these large groups of people for the gain of a minority, with either good or bad intentions, are the ones that ultimately affect everyone's views on religion in today's society. I think that there will always be different people that want to exclude some minority group, whether due to sexual preference, race, or religious views. I don't think there will ever be an end to the narcissism of some people, but at the same time, I think they are very well outnumbered. Sure, the majority of the world may not be gay, but everyone is different.

I consider myself to be an independent politically, partially because I hate it when my parents argue about politics (mom is a Democrat, dad is a Republican). I am also Greek Orthodox and attend church fairly regularly. I really don't know as much about my religion as I should, but I do know that it doesn't allow women to be priests or serve on the altar, but I don't understand why. It is often passed off as being "tradition", but it's not like people don't drive cars to church, or have copiers there. To me, I don't see any problem at all with gay marriage, but I have no clue if my church would support it. I know religion is supposed to be the foundation of morality, and I believe in God, but I'm really doubting whether my beliefs stack up to my religion, or if it should matter at all.

 

[ArcPoint]

Now, imagine if humans could actually co-exist peacefully with one another? While I accept the fact that this may never be, we as people, don't necessarily have to agree with ideas and opinions that we see unfit, but we can at least acknowledge them. Acknowledge that they exist, and respect other peoples feelings.

What a different world this would be if we could just accomplish this ever-so-tedious task. It's so simple, but then it's so complicated.

The thing is, people have different ways of doing things. The biggest example I have is government, we have Capitalists who believe the economy should be run THIS way with little government involvement and we have Communists/Marxists who think the government should control the ENTIRE economy. It's clear to us the United States is not FOR communism, so this would be an example of where ideas that contrast each other quite well, lead to conflict.

 

[.Marik]

.I know religion is supposed to be the foundation of morality, and I believe in God, but I'm really doubting whether my beliefs stack up to my religion, or if it should matter at all.

Ah, so you have doubts? Just as well, for religious concepts are generally flawed.

Now, my question is, do you personally think that if a society accepts a particular notion as mainstream, and correct, does that automatically make it so? I don't think so. What if the morals and views are flawed in some way? And you also mentioned that "tradition" is the reason why people follow such codes and customs... But do you agree? I don't believe that politics and religion go hand in hand. Theocracy goverments often make poor decisions derived from radical, religious ideas.

The thing is, people have different ways of doing things. The biggest example I have is government, we have Capitalists who believe the economy should be run THIS way with little government involvement and we have Communists/Marxists who think the government should control the ENTIRE economy. It's clear to us the United States is not FOR communism, so this would be an example of where ideas that contrast each other quite well, lead to conflict.

Of course there will be conflicts, and disagreements amongst individuals.

But, opposing sides almost never cite evidental proof as to why they are correct, and the "other' side is wrong. That's what irks me. Both sides have ideas and theories. Moralty can't be pinpointed. So, there's no definete way to prove whether someones' concept is right or wrong.

 

[t3h n00b]

Ah, so you have doubts? Just as well, for religious concepts are generally flawed.

Now, my question is, do you personally think that if a society accepts a particular notion as mainstream, and correct, does that automatically make it so? What if the morals and views are flawed in some way? I feel that this is so. And you also mentioned that "tradition" is the reason why people follow such codes and customs... But do you agree? I don't believe that politics and religion go hand in hand. Theocracy goverments often make poor decisions derived from radical, religious ideas.

In my opinion, politics are just as flawed as religion, without the good intentions. The goal of politicians is to lead people, and it is very easy to get one's own interests mixed up in the good of a large group of people.

To answer what you said, I don't think what a society accepts as correct makes it correct, but it will definetly influence many people, meaning more and more people will agree with the specific concept. Take gay marriage for example. I wasn't around back then obviously, but I don't think that there was a push for allowing gay marriage, or really anyone who even thought about it. Less people were openly homosexual back then, and it didn't really affect a lot of people, at least compared to today. Statistics vary widely, from 1-3 percent, or even saying that at least one in every ten people is gay. Either way, when there are 6.7 billion people on earth, the number is substantial. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the average straight person back in the 1950s when black civil rights were still being trampled on if there should be gay marriage, their answer would be no.

As times change, the customs of a society change, often for the better. I think the same should apply to churches. I understand everything that is done is supposed to be out of respect or love to God, but the practices I mentioned earlier seem to be disrespectful to women. Traditions are important to remember, but when a tradition is no longer practical or fair, it should be changed. Theocracies are run mostly on tradition, and that is why they are scarcely used in present times.

But, opposing sides almost never cite evidental proof as to why they are correct, and the "other' side is wrong. That's what irks me. Both sides have ideas and theories. Moralty can't be pinpointed. So, there's no definete way to prove whether someones' concept is right or wrong.

I read A Letter From Birmingham Jail in school a while ago, and I really liked Martin Luther King Jr.'s opinion, and use of another's opinion, in this paragraph: "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."

 

[.Marik]

In my opinion, politics are just as flawed as religion, without the good intentions. The goal of politicians is to lead people, and it is very easy to get one's own interests mixed up in the good of a large group of people.

To answer what you said, I don't think what a society accepts as correct makes it correct, but it will definetly influence many people, meaning more and more people will agree with the specific concept. Take gay marriage for example. I wasn't around back then obviously, but I don't think that there was a push for allowing gay marriage, or really anyone who even thought about it. Less people were openly homosexual back then, and it didn't really affect a lot of people, at least compared to today. Statistics vary widely, from 1-3 percent, or even saying that at least one in every ten people is gay. Either way, when there are 6.7 billion people on earth, the number is substantial. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the average straight person back in the 1950s when black civil rights were still being trampled on if there should be gay marriage, their answer would be no.

As times change, the customs of a society change, often for the better. I think the same should apply to churches. I understand everything that is done is supposed to be out of respect or love to God, but the practices I mentioned earlier seem to be disrespectful to women. Traditions are important to remember, but when a tradition is no longer practical or fair, it should be changed. Theocracies are run mostly on tradition, and that is why they are scarcely used in present times.

Very nicely put. I agree.

Politics are flawed, but they address the current issues of modern society in a more appropriate manner. The logic is more suitable.

Mainstream society has indeed become more liberal, but more often than not, these substantial traditions still cause much bickering and woes between various individuals. Someone who is proud of their beliefs, will often scoff at another persons' opinions, whether they are speaking facts, or theories.

At least society has become more accepting, but these religious traditions continue to be a burden on various cultures, no matter what way you look at it.

*Edit* Saw the second half of your post. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man.

 

[Vorguen]

Gay marriage is a touchy subject. Marriage is clearly designed as an establishment to unite a "man" and a "woman" only. However, this does not mean that gays do not deserve the same rights as a married couple. The government should in my opinion step in to form special "legal unions" between gays who want to have the rights of a married couple. You don't have to be married to live together.

Stereotypes really are centered around ignorance in my opinion. If you are smart enough to realize every person is different and unique and do not fall under the same categories as other similarly colored people or groups with similar beliefs or lifestyles, then you should not be judging people before you know them.

One of the greatest guitarists of all time, is black (Jimi Hendrix). Now a days it seems that every black person is automatically considered to be a "rapper" or interested in "rap". Same goes for others, Asians are believed to love rice, Mexicans are considered lazy, Whites are considered arrogant, etc. These most often than not, aren't true.

It is kind of depressing how little people use their heads when confronted with anything outside of their comfort zone.

 

[.Marik]

It is kind of depressing how little people use their heads when confronted with anything outside of their comfort zone.

I agreed with this, and everything else you said.

 

[karthik_king]

Going on with the whole stereotyping thing, you see it all around you. Like for example one guy is Persian you see him walk by and you 5 people say "terrorist". Or they see some Indian guy and assume he lives off curry.
Also religion is also a very touchy subject, the thing you have got to do is accept someones religion as being true but acknowledge the fact that you choose you religion and it is morally sound just as the other person. You can't just go saying Oh you are [insert religion name here] you are a loser that religion is so fake its just some silly statues. There always will be different sides to the story no matter what. That is just how life is

 

[.Marik]

I want more people to read and reply to this.

Come on, it won't take you that long, folks...

 

[Narukari]

I think you have a little too much to get a good debate going. You're pretty much asking us to debate everything that has differing opinions about it. If you narrowed down the subject a little more you might get some more posts. Right now you have stereotypes, religion, politics, and through the entire initial post you jumped from one subject to another.

You can see from the next few posts that people are all going towards different tracks and there's no center to what we're debating about.

 

[.Marik]

I think you have a little too much to get a good debate going. You're pretty much asking us to debate everything that has differing opinions about it. If you narrowed down the subject a little more you might get some more posts. Right now you have stereotypes, religion, politics, and through the entire initial post you jumped from one subject to another.

You can see from the next few posts that people are all going towards different tracks and there's no center to what we're debating about.

Good point.

I'm debating about a whole variety of issues, but the key concept I'm trying to prove is that there's always "two sides to a story", as my thread title should hint. If it doesn't necessarily suit their opinions, people always seem to disagree and think it's incorrect, rather than merely acknowledge that the other person has opinions and theories themselves.

 

[Aorist]

Gay marriage is a touchy subject. Marriage is clearly designed as an establishment to unite a "man" and a "woman" only. However, this does not mean that gays do not deserve the same rights as a married couple. The government should in my opinion step in to form special "legal unions" between gays who want to have the rights of a married couple. You don't have to be married to live together.

What something is designed for doesn't really matter. What matters is what the thing is in practice. I have in my house a box that though it was designed for carrying fruit, is serving as a bookshelf. No-one has the right to tell me that I shouldn't be doing it, just because it was originally not a bookshelf. Marriage, in practice, is a romantic way for two people to declare their love and interest in a henceforthly monogamous relationship with associated benefits, such as sharing assets and living in a house together. Nobody should care what it was designed for.

Regardless of whether or not you provide a clinical alternative to it, you are restricting people from the former and that's discrimination. Marriage is built up in our society as the pinnacle of romanticism, and that's unlikely to change soon. It's unfair to restrict people from it. To do so is to otherise homosexuality, and that's a bad thing. The otherising of something different, alluded to in the rest of your post, is a terrible, terrible thing, and to do so is to perpetuate their place as outsiders.

Simply put, to not extend the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, and rather to invent a new word for homosexuals to get together, separates them from "normal" people, just like having a coloured part of a bar separate from the rest of the drinkers. Yes, this is even though those American bars were designed for white people.

I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards the scientific side, rather than the religious side of things.

I'm just mentioning it because it irks me, but that's a false dichotomy. Science isn't divorced from religion. I know a bunch of Christian scientists. A lot of deists believe that a God figure set the universe in motion with the Big Bang and just hung around to watch and mess around if necessary. Science itself doesn't pass judgment, and though it can disprove some religious stories, it cannot prove or disprove a divine creator or miracles or things like that.

I'm just going to mention that I'm atheist.

Now, imagine if humans could actually co-exist peacefully with one another? While I accept the fact that this may never be, we as people, don't necessarily have to agree with ideas and opinions that we see unfit, but we can at least acknowledge them. Acknowledge that they exist, and respect other peoples feelings.

What a different world this would be if we could just accomplish this ever-so-tedious task. It's so simple, but then it's so complicated.

Your thoughts?

I'm going to have to add something in. If a person's belief clashes with your rights, or with equal treatment of you, you have every right to disregard their opinion. Political views, for example, won't hurt you, so you don't need to fight about them. But people being racist and thinking that black people are lower class beings who don't deserve to vote or be treated normally? Rail against that as much as possible.

 

[M.K]

Going on with the whole stereotyping thing, you see it all around you. Like for example one guy is Persian you see him walk by and you 5 people say "terrorist". Or they see some Indian guy and assume he lives off curry.
Also religion is also a very touchy subject, the thing you have got to do is accept someones religion as being true but acknowledge the fact that you choose you religion and it is morally sound just as the other person. You can't just go saying Oh you are [insert religion name here] you are a loser that religion is so fake its just some silly statues. There always will be different sides to the story no matter what. That is just how life is

Stereotypes were brought about by people who function in a manner that labels most, if not all, of the same race/religion/political background in a negative manner.
Yes, not all Arabs are terrorists, however, we have the common idea that these people could possibly be terrorist attackers.
Stereotypes are an iffy subject. On one hand, they make us more wary of people based on their looks, and on the other, they label innocent people with crude titles.
My solution? Live alongside the stereotypes, because I am smart enough to look past these generalizations and recognize that not all of the Germans are Nazis, not all of the Christians are insane, and not all of the Arabs are terrorists.

 

[Aorist]

Stereotypes were brought about by people who function in a manner that labels most, if not all, of the same race/religion/political background in a negative manner.
Yes, not all Arabs are terrorists, however, we have the common idea that these people could possibly be terrorist attackers.
Stereotypes are an iffy subject. On one hand, they make us more wary of people based on their looks, and on the other, they label innocent people with crude titles.
My solution? Live alongside the stereotypes, because I am smart enough to look past these generalizations and recognize that not all of the Germans are Nazis, not all of the Christians are insane, and not all of the Arabs are terrorists.

Actually, no, stereotypes only label the most prominent, or noticeable. As soon as you say the word "feminist", people instantly think of the short-haired, man-hating, radical feminists. In reality, this only comprises a miniscule amount of feminists - it's just that they raise more of a ruckus and people notice them more. The proportion of Arab people that are terrorists is even less.

We shouldn't live alongside stereotypes, we should actively seek to break them. You might be smart enough to look past the Arab-ness of someone, but if you perpetuate that stereotype, dumber people than you will treat them with disdain, even if they're really nice people. Not to mention that your initial interaction with these people will probably be wary and negative.

Someone's appearance rarely, if ever, should tell you how to treat them. That's superficial. I make an exception in some circumstances - I take an instant liking to old people with laughter lines as they have demonstrated that they are amusing and like to joke. But, by and large, judging people upon their appearance will mislead you and cause you to look at them in the wrong way. Don't judge a book by its cover, and all.

 

[t3h n00b]

I take an instant liking to old people with laughter lines as they have demonstrated that they are amusing and like to joke. But, by and large, judging people upon their appearance will mislead you and cause you to look at them in the wrong way. Don't judge a book by its cover, and all.

If there were only positive stereotypes, the world would be a much nicer place.

 

[Aorist]

If there were only positive stereotypes, the world would be a much nicer place.

True, but it still wouldn't be perfect. A lack of positive stereotypes is effectively a negative stereotype in that situation.

 

[RazeveX]

I...don't quite get what this thread is really about.

Yes, there are always two sides to a "story".

I may say that 1+1=2 because it has been proven to be true numerous times. For example, when I pick up one pencil and another one, I notice that I now have two pencils. This has never changed.

However, someone may claim that 1+1=3, because they once picked one apple, then another, and ended up with three apples.

We can deny or support anything as humans; but does that mean we should really invest a lot of time, effort, money and research into how this person supposedly made 1+1=3?

Just because there are two sides, doesn't mean that we can't assume one is correct. If we never assume, we would not know anything. Nothing is ever proven; we are never sure of anything.

I'm sure that you, reading this post, believe that 1+1=2; and although you could provide the most overwhelming evidence, you could not prove it. So, we simply assume. The evidence suggests it.

Is it wrong to assume that the person who claimed that 1+1=3 made a mistake? That they counted wrong? That an apple fell from a tree into the basket they were holding?

In conclusion:

1. It is likely that murder is wrong, regardless of how many sides there are.
2. I can ramble on about nothing just as well as anyone else in this thread

 

[.Marik]

I...don't quite get what this thread is really about.

Yes, there are always two sides to a "story".

I may say that 1+1=2 because it has been proven to be true numerous times. For example, when I pick up one pencil and another one, I notice that I now have two pencils. This has never changed.

However, someone may claim that 1+1=3, because they once picked one apple, then another, and ended up with three apples.

We can deny or support anything as humans; but does that mean we should really invest a lot of time, effort, money and research into how this person supposedly made 1+1=3?

Just because there are two sides, doesn't mean that we can't assume one is correct. If we never assume, we would not know anything. Nothing is ever proven; we are never sure of anything.

I'm sure that you, reading this post, believe that 1+1=2; and although you could provide the most overwhelming evidence, you could not prove it. So, we simply assume. The evidence suggests it.

Is it wrong to assume that the person who claimed that 1+1=3 made a mistake? That they counted wrong? That an apple fell from a tree into the basket they were holding?

In conclusion:

1. It is likely that murder is wrong, regardless of how many sides there are.
2. I can ramble on about nothing just as well as anyone else in this thread

I see your point.

But that's the thing. There is no definite answer. We can't prove anything. But as we say this ourselves, people have to judge and biase against others, because that opinion may not neccessarily reflect theirs, so they automatically assume it's incorrect. But how do they know this? How can they say that for certain?

The TL;DR explanation of mine, was just a couple examples relating to this point I'm trying to prove. We must acknowledge that others have different theories and opinions.

We're not rambling, we are having an intellectual discussion.

 

[RDK]

To the OP: this thread is a bit obfuscating, so in the future, try and make your purpose a little less broad. A debate about debating will no doubt fall into chaos, as there's no real topic to bind the discussion together.

That being said:

I see your point.

But that's the thing. There is no definite answer. We can't prove anything. But as we say this ourselves, people have to judge and biase against others, because that opinion may not neccessarily reflect theirs, so they automatically assume it's incorrect. But how do they know this? How can they say that for certain?

As humans, we are gifted with a rational faculty; we use logic. Because of this, we're able to differentiate between things that make sense and don't make sense.

Unfortunately, some of us are better at it than others.

The TL;DR explanation of mine, was just a couple examples relating to this point I'm trying to prove. We must acknowledge that others have different theories and opinions.

We're not rambling, we are having an intellectual discussion.

I suppose this can be considered my response to the OP.

It's true that all topics have various sides; often times much more than just 2. However, just because differing viewpoints exist does not mean that they are all on the same level of validity. The diversity that comes with these types of topics pretty much ensures that some are going to be wrong. In reality, only one can be right.

Prime example: the evolution vs. creationism debate, which, if I were to be frank, is really not a debate at all. To elevate creationist theory to the level of evolutionary theory borders on the absurd, and is akin to saying that flat-Earthers and geocentrists are just as valid as heliocentrists.

 

[RazeveX]

It's true that all topics have various sides; often times much more than just 2. However, just because differing viewpoints exist does not mean that they are all on the same level of validity. The diversity that comes with these types of topics pretty much ensures that some are going to be wrong. In reality, only one can be right.

This is essentially what my reply would have consisted of, except that I think that there are situations where more than one theory or suggestion can be right. Minor gripe, though.
Although "rambling" may not have been the right word, I feel that extending simple concepts (eg. two sides to a story, 1+1=2) quite pointless, really.

Prime example: the evolution vs. creationism debate, which, if I were to be frank, is really not a debate at all. To elevate creationist theory to the level of evolutionary theory borders on the absurd, and is akin to saying that flat-Earthers and geocentrists are just as valid as heliocentrists.

I started writing on how i felt about this statement (not strongly either way), but I don't want to go off topic.

Speaking of off topic, PINEAPPLE.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

RDK is right, there can only be one right. However, there may be more than one solution to set a problem in the right direction. These solutions have varying validity, in which there is usually a best solution to some issue.

Another example: the Global warming debate is, well to be honest, not a debate. It's impossible to ignore all the evidence against Global Warming, but there are multiple, varying solutions to the problem.

If you are going to quote someone...stay on topic or say something about it :/

 

[RDK]

I started writing on how i felt about this statement (not strongly either way), but I don't want to go off topic.

Speaking of off topic, PINEAPPLE.

If you have something to say, start a new topic. The existing ones are a tad beginner-ish, so maybe you guys need some more mature topics to spark deep conversation.

 

[.Marik]

Ah. I do see I varied from a wide variety of discussions, making it a tad complicated. I rambled. My apologies.

However, I do assume everyone knows the main intention of this thread. Not to be judgemental of another individuals ideas, and that there is more behind life's meaning then only your version of things.

That is all.

 

[RazeveX]

Ah. I do see I varied from a wide variety of discussions, making it a tad complicated. I rambled. My apologies.

However, I do assume everyone knows the main intention of this thread. Not to be judgemental of another individuals ideas, and that there is more behind life's meaning then only your version of things.

That is all.

The thing is, nearly everyone would agree that there are differing views on different subjects; not many go so far as to deny the existence of another argument.
So, there's not really anything to debate against, unless you can bring my attention to something I've missed.

 

[.Marik]

As humans, we are gifted with a rational faculty; we use logic. Because of this, we're able to differentiate between things that make sense and don't make sense.
Unfortunately, some of us are better at it than others.

I agree. If that could be said, there wouldn't be such much hassle over religious aspects.

He might exist. Might, I said. Does anybody ever listen? With all the attacks and discrimination, it doesn't look like it.

In reality, only one can be right.

True...

The thing is, nearly everyone would agree that there are differing views on different subjects; not many go so far as to deny the existence of another argument.
So, there's not really anything to debate against, unless you can bring my attention to something I've missed.

But people do go as far as to deny, and even harm someone else because of their difference in views.

There's not one specific topic I'm trying to make my point on. I'm repeating myself so...

You know what I find funny? The more devout a certain person supposedly is to a given religion, the further they stray from its core values.

Last time I checked, the majority of the Bible was composed of metaphorical meanings, not literal meanings.

 

[Xivii]

Heh.

 

[.Marik]

Just let this thread die, please.

I've already stated my theories and opinions, but I went overboard doing so...

 

[RDK]

It is a universal understanding that 1+1=2. That is correct.
However, that is not to say that the statement 1+1=3 is false. In fact it can be proven as true in many ways. The most common example would be this: 1 Male +1 Female = 1 Child, 1+1+1=3. Therefore the statement 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are both correct.

That's more a play on semantics than actually trying to prove that, mathematically, the numbers 1 and 1 add up to 2.

 

[Xivii]

That's more a play on semantics than actually trying to prove that, mathematically, the numbers 1 and 1 add up to 2.

Why not at all. Is it not true that when a male and female mate they can produce one single off spring? Why of course they can produce two as well but that is the point. There is more than one possibility. It is not a play on anything, most certainly not semantics. The fact that mathematically 1 and 1 are not followed by any specified unit enables there to be an infinite number of solutions the expression 1+1. Therefore their is not one single answer, proving that your statement that "In reality, there can be only one right" solution is false.

 

[RDK]

Why not at all. Is it not true that when a male and female mate they can produce one single off spring? Why of course they can produce two as well but that is the point. There is more than one possibility. It is not a play on anything, most certainly not semantics. The fact that mathematically 1 and 1 are not followed by any specified unit enables there to be an infinite number of solutions the expression 1+1. Therefore their is not one single answer, proving that your statement that "In reality, there can be only one right" solution is false.

You're missing the point.

My original stance was that there is an objective reality separate from and able to be observed by, albeit in a flawed way, subjective consciousness. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is , mathematically, true. When speaking in the right context, 1 + 1 can be nothing but 2. You're just taking units of measurement out of the statement and trying to pass it off as having multiple answers.

No duh there can be multiple answers--but that's only because you weren't specific in your assertion. If I simply say 1 + 1 = 3 without going into detail about exactly what I mean, I'm not being wisely esoteric, or even clever. I'm just failing at communicating my intentions.

And that's called autism.

 

[Xivii]

You're missing the point.

My original stance was that there is an objective reality separate from and able to be observed by, albeit in a flawed way, subjective consciousness. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is , mathematically, true. When speaking in the right context, 1 + 1 can be nothing but 2. You're just taking units of measurement out of the statement and trying to pass it off as having multiple answers.

No duh there can be multiple answers--but that's only because you weren't specific in your assertion. If I simply say 1 + 1 = 3 without going into detail about exactly what I mean, I'm not being wisely esoteric, or even clever. I'm just failing at communicating my intentions.

And that's called autism.

Ahh , now I am beginning to understand your point. I do not disagree with that.

I do not disagree with the number example neither, however there is more to it than that. You say 1+1=2 "mathematically," which is true. But that is only based on mathematics. When units are added they become more than just numbers used in mathematics. They now represent something physical. Their properties change when applied to the Man and Woman. 1+1=? is too broad of an inquisition to conclude there to be a single definite answer.

Do you disagree?

 

[t3h n00b]

Ahh , now I am beginning to understand your point. I do not disagree with that.

I do not disagree with the number example neither, however there is more to it than that. You say 1+1=2 "mathematically," which is true. But that is only based on mathematics. When units are added they become more than just numbers used in mathematics. They now represent something physical. Their properties change when applied to the Man and Woman. 1+1=? is too broad of an inquisition to conclude there to be a single definite answer.

Do you disagree?

The common meaning of "1", for the most part, is the arbitrary, unit-less number, unless it is given a unit. So you could kind of say 1 man + 1 woman can equal whatever you want, but if you say "what is 1+1?", people will tell you two. But what you are saying parallels this whole discussion. Some things, like laws of physics, are simply facts, and can't really be debated on, or at least cannot be disproven, or they aren't facts. Now questioning perceived facts can lead to them being disproven, but until then, they're facts. But everything else is up for interpretation, like "1+1=?" outside of the context of mathematics (although it will be implied to be mathematical unless you explain it).

 

[Narukari]

Ok, while I think the 1+1 debate is silly:

Isn't 1 man + 1 woman = 2 people

 

[.Marik]

^ And it's off-topic, also.

 

[Xivii]

Heh.