Catholic Cardinal calls the election of Obama "Apocalyptic"

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
It is very intellectually convenient to hold that moral absolutes exist and to impose them on others based on your faith and then to claim that you're insulated from others' objections because they're not based on a full understanding of your faith. It is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical to base opinions on faith, posit them as absolutes, and then impose them on others with disregard for other beliefs.

You are criticizing this man's belief. The criticisms that you have used rely completely on incorrect ideas that you formulated in your ignorance. I'm sorry that you feel your ignorance should be able to impinge on the validity of this man's point, but it doesn't.

The separation of church and state exists precisely to prevent self-justifying theocratic positions such as this from corrupting the nation.

Yes, because a statement issued by Catholics to Catholics is always an attempt to coerce the American people into doing the will of the Catholic Church. Nice fail.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The clash of absolutes was alleviated by practical people by adjusting the notion of WHEN life begins. The hierarchy is thus preserved just as it was by ancient Jews with the concept of life as breath.

Correct. Thus, the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning the hierarchy on its ear.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How relative of you. What you call another person's convenience, they call being freed from a living hell.

Like all bigots, you are blinded by the good, the correct certainty that life is precious slopped over onto areas where other truths are trampled. The exercise of truth requires judgment, not inflexibility or fanaticism to a subset of principles.

The living hell that you might free one person from is simply pushed onto another: the mother to the fetus. Truth is what it is, regardless of whether we see it, acknowledge it, or understand it. We can only attempt to understand the form, but that does not diminish its truth. You have decided that truth is relative, but I disagree. Truth is absolute, while our perception of truth is imperfect and, therefore, relative.

On the contrary. It is I who maintains the absolute truth that all truths must balance out. You are the relativists here. It is your perception of truth that is imperfect. You have bought into a line. I died to all my lines. It is I, therefore, who has the freedom to see. You have even rejected the ancient Jews who are at the root of your religion. Your truth makes slaves of women, something the church has happily done for centuries. My truth sets women free while preserving the dignity of life. You lose.

Don't forget that as a bigot, a person who has an irrational religious belief based on some dusty text, you will not see the unexamined assumption you make that you are right because you are right, without the slightest hint of rationality.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
On the contrary. It is I who maintains the absolute truth that all truths must balance out. You are the relativists here. It is your perception of truth that is imperfect. You have bought into a line. I died to all my lines. It is I, therefore, who has the freedom to see. You have even rejected the ancient Jews who are at the root of your religion. Your truth makes slaves of women, something the church has happily done for centuries. My truth sets women free while preserving the dignity of life. You lose.

Don't forget that as a bigot, a person who has an irrational religious belief based on some dusty text, you will not see the unexamined assumption you make that you are right because you are right, without the slightest hint of rationality.

My personality is that of the Architect - I live to analyze and understand things. As such, I am very much aware of the assumptions that I make in arriving at my conclusions. Indeed, I usually spend more time choosing these assumptions than journeying to the conclusions because, once the assumptions are made, the conclusions logically follow and are trivially achieved. You know that your assumptions are right just as I know that mine are right. Rather than even consider my assumptions, you simply invoke the "dusty old book" argument, which is rather disappointing coming from you. I was sure that you understood me better than that. If you really think that I get my ideas and motivations from a book, then I don't see any need to discuss anything with you.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
On the contrary. It is I who maintains the absolute truth that all truths must balance out. You are the relativists here. It is your perception of truth that is imperfect. You have bought into a line. I died to all my lines. It is I, therefore, who has the freedom to see. You have even rejected the ancient Jews who are at the root of your religion. Your truth makes slaves of women, something the church has happily done for centuries. My truth sets women free while preserving the dignity of life. You lose.

Don't forget that as a bigot, a person who has an irrational religious belief based on some dusty text, you will not see the unexamined assumption you make that you are right because you are right, without the slightest hint of rationality.

My personality is that of the Architect - I live to analyze and understand things. As such, I am very much aware of the assumptions that I make in arriving at my conclusions. Indeed, I usually spend more time choosing these assumptions than journeying to the conclusions because, once the assumptions are made, the conclusions logically follow and are trivially achieved. You know that your assumptions are right just as I know that mine are right. Rather than even consider my assumptions, you simply invoke the "dusty old book" argument, which is rather disappointing coming from you. I was sure that you understood me better than that. If you really think that I get my ideas and motivations from a book, then I don't see any need to discuss anything with you.

Nothing personal here... but, you seem to be the Renter long after the Architect has completed his work. That you conclude which Condo suits your tastes you seem to demand (perhaps not that strongly) that all Condo units should be as yours is... Me thinks I don't like the floor plan of yours and prefer the one down the street... IT IS OK Right?? I hope.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You are criticizing this man's belief. The criticisms that you have used rely completely on incorrect ideas that you formulated in your ignorance. I'm sorry that you feel your ignorance should be able to impinge on the validity of this man's point, but it doesn't.

Hardly. I have not criticized his beliefs beyond the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty implicit in regarding personal faith as an absolute standard which may be imposed on others not sharing that faith.

Originally posted by: CycloWizardYes, because a statement issued by Catholics to Catholics is always an attempt to coerce the American people into doing the will of the Catholic Church. Nice fail.

If that was truly the case, then I would withdraw my stated objections. Sadly though it's just a continuation of gross intellectual dishonesty to claim that this is just a discussion among Catholics with no import on American politics in general and the American people at large by extension. A necessary counter-proof to my claim would be a demonstration of how abortion law change would only impact Catholics.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Nothing personal here... but, you seem to be the Renter long after the Architect has completed his work. That you conclude which Condo suits your tastes you seem to demand (perhaps not that strongly) that all Condo units should be as yours is... Me thinks I don't like the floor plan of yours and prefer the one down the street... IT IS OK Right?? I hope.

You seem to feel that truth is a matter of opinion and, therefore, that multiple truths may coexist without any contradiction. I disagree. I have never suggested that what I think is the truth is the Truth, nor that what the Catholic Church thinks is the truth is the Truth. The Truth is not something any person or organization can monopolize - it is simply the Truth. If my truth disagrees with the Truth, my truth is wrong. In the end, everyone votes in an effort to inflict their truth on everyone else because everyone thinks that their truth is Truth (otherwise, why would they hold such beliefs?).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Hardly. I have not criticized his beliefs beyond the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty implicit in regarding personal faith as an absolute standard which may be imposed on others not sharing that faith.

If your agenda's foundation is so weak that it cannot withstand the onslaught of ideas from one man posted on a website intended for persons other than yourself, then you have deeper issues. I believe this claim is evidenced by the bulk of your statements in this thread.

If that was truly the case, then I would withdraw my stated objections. Sadly though it's just a continuation of gross intellectual dishonesty to claim that this is just a discussion among Catholics with no import on American politics in general and the American people at large by extension. A necessary counter-proof to my claim would be a demonstration of how abortion law change would only impact Catholics.

He's a Catholic teacher and put out a statement to Catholics, but I digress. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the claimant. If you really think this statement will influence state policy in the United States, please produce some evidence to support your claims.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

If that was truly the case, then I would withdraw my stated objections. Sadly though it's just a continuation of gross intellectual dishonesty to claim that this is just a discussion among Catholics with no import on American politics in general and the American people at large by extension. A necessary counter-proof to my claim would be a demonstration of how abortion law change would only impact Catholics.

He's a Catholic teacher and put out a statement to Catholics, but I digress. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the claimant. If you really think this statement will influence state policy in the United States, please produce some evidence to support your claims.

Are you fucking kidding me! Are we even living on the same planet? Do you have any idea how many people always vote Republican simply because the "church" says those democrats are evil baby-murders.

EDIT : I'll admit Madwand1 bringing up the whole "separation of church and state" issue wasn't needed, but his comparison still stands.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Tab
EDIT : I'll admit Madwand1 bringing up the whole "separation of church and state" issue wasn't needed, but his comparison still stands.

Tab, I have no personal disagreement with you, but just FYI, the "separation of state issue" was brought up by the cardinal himself. Be that as it may, agree or disagree as you wish, but it is not a non-issue.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tab
Are you fucking kidding me! Are we even living on the same planet? Do you have any idea how many people always vote Republican simply because the "church" says those democrats are evil baby-murders.

Catholics and evangelical Christians are not the same thing. In fact, most evangelicals hate Catholics and don't even consider them Christians. That, and most Catholics voted D this time around. Your assertion that people vote exactly as directed by the Catholic Church is therefore noted and disregarded.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
He's a Catholic teacher and put out a statement to Catholics, but I digress. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the claimant. If you really think this statement will influence state policy in the United States, please produce some evidence to support your claims.

It's funny that you ask for a proof of political influence when the matter of the speech refers to national politics and policies directly. I didn't claim actual influence but only the intent to influence, which is sufficient for my argument. The religious right lost the election, and this diatribe is in part an attempted sensationalization of that loss in catastrophic terms as a result of the pangs of suffering because of that loss. Hence the argument against actual influence is pretty good, obviously and admittedly, but the argument against intent to influence and intending to affect only Catholics is patently absurd.

Now prove how the matter of the speech is only intended for Catholics as only Catholics would be influenced if the abortion laws were changed in the manner intended in the speech.

 

[tfcmasta97]

Obama's absolutely disgusting. He wants to shut down Guantanamo, give people basic human rights AND give them a right to CHOICE?!?!

HE should be thrown into Guantanamo, until he understands he's the bringer of the unholy evil. Hell in a handbasket i tells ya

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The clash of absolutes was alleviated by practical people by adjusting the notion of WHEN life begins. The hierarchy is thus preserved just as it was by ancient Jews with the concept of life as breath.

Correct. Thus, the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning the hierarchy on its ear.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How relative of you. What you call another person's convenience, they call being freed from a living hell.

Like all bigots, you are blinded by the good, the correct certainty that life is precious slopped over onto areas where other truths are trampled. The exercise of truth requires judgment, not inflexibility or fanaticism to a subset of principles.

The living hell that you might free one person from is simply pushed onto another: the mother to the fetus. Truth is what it is, regardless of whether we see it, acknowledge it, or understand it. We can only attempt to understand the form, but that does not diminish its truth. You have decided that truth is relative, but I disagree. Truth is absolute, while our perception of truth is imperfect and, therefore, relative.

On the contrary. It is I who maintains the absolute truth that all truths must balance out. You are the relativists here. It is your perception of truth that is imperfect. You have bought into a line. I died to all my lines. It is I, therefore, who has the freedom to see. You have even rejected the ancient Jews who are at the root of your religion. Your truth makes slaves of women, something the church has happily done for centuries. My truth sets women free while preserving the dignity of life. You lose.

Don't forget that as a bigot, a person who has an irrational religious belief based on some dusty text, you will not see the unexamined assumption you make that you are right because you are right, without the slightest hint of rationality.

OK then you will have to argue for yourself how the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning hierarchy on its ear. You can't just say that and have it be true. How do you ignore that your truth makes women slaves? How has a man come to decide what women should do? I maintain that when absolutism leads into contradiction, the violation of other absolutes it may be an absolute but it isn't being properly applied. Truth can't violate itself. That you fixate on one aspect of things makes no sense to me and indicates you went screwy somewhere. The usual reason is blindness due to bias. If you are an architect then I'm a demolition expert, because when I got done nothing was left standing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
It's funny that you ask for a proof of political influence when the matter of the speech refers to national politics and policies directly. I didn't claim actual influence but only the intent to influence, which is sufficient for my argument. The religious right lost the election, and this diatribe is in part an attempted sensationalization of that loss in catastrophic terms as a result of the pangs of suffering because of that loss. Hence the argument against actual influence is pretty good, obviously and admittedly, but the argument against intent to influence and intending to affect only Catholics is patently absurd.

Now prove how the matter of the speech is only intended for Catholics as only Catholics would be influenced if the abortion laws were changed in the manner intended in the speech.

If his intent was to affect the election, one would assume that these statements would have been made before the election. Since they weren't, I can only assume that there are drugs involved in your analysis.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OK then you will have to argue for yourself how the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning hierarchy on its ear. You can't just say that and have it be true. How do you ignore that your truth makes women slaves? How has a man come to decide what women should do? I maintain that when absolutism leads into contradiction, the violation of other absolutes it may be an absolute but it isn't being properly applied. Truth can't violate itself. That you fixate on one aspect of things makes no sense to me and indicates you went screwy somewhere. The usual reason is blindness due to bias. If you are an architect then I'm a demolition expert, because when I got done nothing was left standing.

My truth is that the fetus is a person. Therefore, its right to life exceeds the mother's right to freedom. Even at that, the mother still had the freedom to choose whether or not she became impregnated in nearly all cases. Thus, if she is being enslaved as you claim, she is enslaving herself by willfully undertaking actions that can, and often does, result in her "enslavement." At what point in your model does culpability of the woman come into play, or does it ever?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Nothing personal here... but, you seem to be the Renter long after the Architect has completed his work. That you conclude which Condo suits your tastes you seem to demand (perhaps not that strongly) that all Condo units should be as yours is... Me thinks I don't like the floor plan of yours and prefer the one down the street... IT IS OK Right?? I hope.

You seem to feel that truth is a matter of opinion and, therefore, that multiple truths may coexist without any contradiction. I disagree. I have never suggested that what I think is the truth is the Truth, nor that what the Catholic Church thinks is the truth is the Truth. The Truth is not something any person or organization can monopolize - it is simply the Truth. If my truth disagrees with the Truth, my truth is wrong. In the end, everyone votes in an effort to inflict their truth on everyone else because everyone thinks that their truth is Truth (otherwise, why would they hold such beliefs?).

Why indeed. I don't. I don't believe in anything.

But what is it you are saying here? You propound that there is a truth but that you have not suggested you know what it is, yet you say, further, that everyone votes in an effort to inflict their truth on everyone else because everyone thinks their truth is Truth. You are included in everyone so you inflict and your think your truth is Truth even though you just got through claiming you don't claim to know the truth. You can't have it both ways, no?

And if everybody thinks he or she knows the truth that is Truth and few people agree on everything, then certainly we all prefer different Condos and even if the various truth conflict it will be necessary that those of differing opinion do not in so far as pushing their ideas onto others as law. Otherwise it will be necessary for me to maintain my freedom by making certain everybody else is dead, no? And this necessarily follows because if everybody thinks his truth is Truth and nobody agrees of everything, then only I have the one and only real truth and you, like LunarRay only hold subjective opinions. In short, you are saying that truth is a matter of opinion too.

And there are further problems. If you don't claim to know the Truth then you can't really have any opinion as to what it is. Like me, you don't know anything. And what you particularly can't know is if there is anything called Truth. You believe but your belief is irrational. So did you get this idea from an old text?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OK then you will have to argue for yourself how the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning hierarchy on its ear. You can't just say that and have it be true. How do you ignore that your truth makes women slaves? How has a man come to decide what women should do? I maintain that when absolutism leads into contradiction, the violation of other absolutes it may be an absolute but it isn't being properly applied. Truth can't violate itself. That you fixate on one aspect of things makes no sense to me and indicates you went screwy somewhere. The usual reason is blindness due to bias. If you are an architect then I'm a demolition expert, because when I got done nothing was left standing.

My truth is that the fetus is a person. Therefore, its right to life exceeds the mother's right to freedom. Even at that, the mother still had the freedom to choose whether or not she became impregnated in nearly all cases. Thus, if she is being enslaved as you claim, she is enslaving herself by willfully undertaking actions that can, and often does, result in her "enslavement." At what point in your model does culpability of the woman come into play, or does it ever?

You know that we are forgiven. The reason, though not so obvious, is that there can be no guild. People are asleep. They do not know what they feel. You can't be responsible when you act for reasons you are totally unconscious of. Only the awakened could really be guilty of anything. You have this notion of personal responsibility because your position falls apart in its absence. It is totally false. There is no good or evil. But there is a powerful urge to point fingers and punish the result of the use of violence to produce conformity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

What about the guilt and emotional stress that many women feel after having an abortion? Why do so many women who actually see their baby on an ultrasound decide not to abort their baby? There's a powerful and real connection there between a woman and a child. Then there is Adoption, with a waiting list of all things... couples eager to adopt and we're scrambling brains of unborn as a birth control method...

 

[Moonbeam]

My truth is that the fetus is a person. Therefore, its right to life exceeds the mother's right to freedom.

Clearly the fetus can't be a person because if it were the absolute right of a woman to freedom would be lost.

If one absolute can take president over another there are no absolutes. There is only the subjective opinion arguing over what has president. For example, here, what has no conscious life, is unaware that it is alive, can't have president over what is self aware. It is self awareness from which the value of life springs. There can't therefore be any value in want is not self aware. Rocks will eventually become part of some fetuses so rocks have rights over women. Silly argument, you see?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

What about the guilt and emotional stress that many women feel after having an abortion? Why do so many women who actually see their baby on an ultrasound decide not to abort their baby? There's a powerful and real connection there between a woman and a child. Then there is Adoption, with a waiting list of all things... couples eager to adopt and we're scrambling brains of unborn as a birth control method...

Women have choice. They can chose lots of things. You can't chose for them. You also can't speak for them.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
OK then you will have to argue for yourself how the truth was hidden in favor of convenience, turning hierarchy on its ear. You can't just say that and have it be true. How do you ignore that your truth makes women slaves? How has a man come to decide what women should do? I maintain that when absolutism leads into contradiction, the violation of other absolutes it may be an absolute but it isn't being properly applied. Truth can't violate itself. That you fixate on one aspect of things makes no sense to me and indicates you went screwy somewhere. The usual reason is blindness due to bias. If you are an architect then I'm a demolition expert, because when I got done nothing was left standing.

My truth is that the fetus is a person. Therefore, its right to life exceeds the mother's right to freedom. Even at that, the mother still had the freedom to choose whether or not she became impregnated in nearly all cases. Thus, if she is being enslaved as you claim, she is enslaving herself by willfully undertaking actions that can, and often does, result in her "enslavement." At what point in your model does culpability of the woman come into play, or does it ever?

You know that we are forgiven. The reason, though not so obvious, is that there can be no guild. People are asleep. They do not know what they feel. You can't be responsible when you act for reasons you are totally unconscious of. Only the awakened could really be guilty of anything. You have this notion of personal responsibility because your position falls apart in its absence. It is totally false. There is no good or evil. But there is a powerful urge to point fingers and punish the result of the use of violence to produce conformity.

So another application of your logic in the bold would be, "you think you're a human because if you didn't your idea of your humanity would fall apart?" You're logic is kind of silly. By your own reasoning, if there is a God, which you can't prove there is or isn't, you're whole world falls apart. If you are honest with yourself you would at least consider it a posibility, a frightening one if you are really honest.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

What about the guilt and emotional stress that many women feel after having an abortion? Why do so many women who actually see their baby on an ultrasound decide not to abort their baby? There's a powerful and real connection there between a woman and a child. Then there is Adoption, with a waiting list of all things... couples eager to adopt and we're scrambling brains of unborn as a birth control method...

Women have choice. They can chose lots of things. You can't chose for them. You also can't speak for them.

I'm not trying to choose for them, i'm just saying you're view isn't the best outcome, even if you ignore "sin".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Take the case of a woman who has been raped and is pregnant. She doesn't want the child. It reminds her of her horror and cause tremendous emotional pain. The fetus will know nothing feel nothing if it is aborted because it is at the level of an amoeba. The woman has priority because she is conscious, fully human, and in pain. You claim that your fantasy of the value the fetus could have as a fully conscious and mature person outweighs the fact that's the actual condition of the woman, now. You value your hypothetical over the real. This is why absolute thinking is insane. You value your fabrications over real human pain. Somebody real should suffer for your beliefs. Nope.

What about the guilt and emotional stress that many women feel after having an abortion? Why do so many women who actually see their baby on an ultrasound decide not to abort their baby? There's a powerful and real connection there between a woman and a child. Then there is Adoption, with a waiting list of all things... couples eager to adopt and we're scrambling brains of unborn as a birth control method...

Women have choice. They can chose lots of things. You can't chose for them. You also can't speak for them.

I'm not trying to choose for them, i'm just saying you're view isn't the best outcome, even if you ignore "sin".

You don't get to speak for women. You don't get to decide what is the best outcome and what is not. You have an opinion. It does not create truth.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: Why indeed. I don't. I don't believe in anything.

C: Yes you do. You believe that when you flush the toilet, the water will go down the drain rather than shoot you in the face.

M: But what is it you are saying here? You propound that there is a truth but that you have not suggested you know what it is, yet you say, further, that everyone votes in an effort to inflict their truth on everyone else because everyone thinks their truth is Truth. You are included in everyone so you inflict and your think your truth is Truth even though you just got through claiming you don't claim to know the truth. You can't have it both ways, no?

C: I'm not asking to have it both ways. I'm simply stating the pragmatic solution to the problem: truth by majority. That's how this nation works. I think my truth is better than yours, so I vote according to mine rather than yours. If I thought yours was better, then I would make it my own and vote accordingly. Voter's evolution, if you would.

M: And if everybody thinks he or she knows the truth that is Truth and few people agree on everything, then certainly we all prefer different Condos and even if the various truth conflict it will be necessary that those of differing opinion do not in so far as pushing their ideas onto others as law. Otherwise it will be necessary for me to maintain my freedom by making certain everybody else is dead, no? And this necessarily follows because if everybody thinks his truth is Truth and nobody agrees of everything, then only I have the one and only real truth and you, like LunarRay only hold subjective opinions. In short, you are saying that truth is a matter of opinion too.

C: Who said there is Truth in all matters of opinion? I can say that green is the best color and you can say it's red and both of us can be right because we can define "best" as we see fit. If, on the other hand, you argue that red light has a wavelength of 532 nm and I argue that its wavelength is 900 nm, then we're both wrong since red is somewhere in between, as is often the case.

M: And there are further problems. If you don't claim to know the Truth then you can't really have any opinion as to what it is. Like me, you don't know anything. And what you particularly can't know is if there is anything called Truth. You believe but your belief is irrational. So did you get this idea from an old text?

C: I can't be absolutely certain that my truth is Truth any more than I can be absolutely certain that I'll wake up tomorrow. All I can know for sure is that my truth is the best approximation of Truth that I have been able to formulate given my limited perspective, experiences, predispositions, abilities, and thoughts. I can hope that my truth is Truth just like I can hope to wake up tomorrow. If my truth was the same as yours, I'm not sure that I'd have the same hope that I assume you do - to wake up tomorrow. Maybe that's why our truths are different.