i usually do qualify my position.
look, it's like this. i see a guy whose nose is stuffy. he(his nose) really isn't smelling so good, neither is his eyesight too sharp at the moment. i see that he's about to get tricked into eating a sandwich full of poop that the local bozo has made for him. the bozo is giggling sooo hard about it he's starting to tear up. the problem is that the first guy trusts the bozo implicitly. i say, "hey! guy! don't eat that, it's poop!". the guy says "#@@##$ you, this is MY sandwich", so i have to let him eat it. because i'm not a hater, i say "'wait! wait! don't do it! it's poop, i tell you!". the guy says, "stop talking so loud and stop telling me what to do". and so it goes....
stardust, i'm really sorry that when people disagree with me and argue, that i am fully willing to engage the other in the conversation. i'm not concerned with having a popular opinion, but at least the opinion is well thought out and reasoned(hopefully) and i can explain my position. i'm also able to define my terms to further explain my meaning. isn't that the point of the arguement, not to be right, but to communicate and seek clarity?
i'm used to being nay-say'ed, it doesn't bother me, though it always amuses me that the nay-sayer is as sure of his viewpoint as i am, even more so, whether or not he has actually fully investigated the evidence of my(or anyone's) point. ooops, i guess the point just broke and it's a little dull now.
it's o.k.. all i said was that the universe is complete and whole, that nothing is lost or gained and i gave a reasoned example using common terminology which exists for the sole purpose of describing the universe, as evidence. for me personally, evidence is enough. for another person, maybe not. but the fact remains that the responses i've gotten have NOTHING to do with the points i've made, so i patiently keep repeating myself until i get a response that indicates a connection and a conversation. you can call it bossy if you like. for example, i could call most who have spoken Satanists, or at least Luciferians, but then i'd get an emotional response which would not be based on sight or understanding. rather the response would be based on some pop or cultural icon that had NOTHING to do with the reality of the term. so, i keep trying to define my terms. once again, Humpty Dumpty thought words meant just what he said them to and nothing more. unfortunately, he wasn't a wise man. he was an egg who loved to sit on high walls and claim knowledge of everything. it was only a matter of time before he fell off the wall(he got excited and moved too quickly and eggs are round). naturally, all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't fix him.
why is it always all or nothing anyway? nobody knows EVERYTHING, but all can know SOMETHING. what do they know? only the knower knows what he knows....
the universe is NOT subjective, only our thoughts about it are. you(or i) may claim i can't know this anyway, but that doesn't worry me either. as i said, i'm comfortable with the paradox. i have no illusions that all knowledge is nearly in man's grasp. and, because i love you,
whether i am wrong or right, when i see something that looks like poop, i will most likely say something.... c'mon guys,
don't be so grouchy!
at least we took a minute to talk of such things!
. I think I'm not missing a real discussion nor the listening of your points if I find this statement of yours conflicting with some other ones. I simply think that you (we) only have thoughts about anything, we can't escape subjectivity, unless we use conventions which are nothing else than accepted averages of subjectivity, for social and operative purposes.
