Tweet
Originally posted by gribbler
View Post
another bald assertion 
-
Even Krugman agrees with me.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };: -
dude, the fact that reality itself is objective does not make all questions regarding reality objective. if there are multiple acceptable ways to arrive at an answer, and they lead to different answers, the question is subjectiveOriginally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
Comment
-
No, then the question is controversial and/or has been insufficiently explored.Comment
-
Kuci not everything has an objective answer to it. This probably does, but not everything does.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
If the answer (the answer meaning what people believe to be correct) depends on personal preference, it's subjective. Get yourself a dictionary.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostComment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
Note that he was saying that it was in 90% of people's self-interest.Comment
-
No, that's not what subjective means.Originally posted by gribbler View Post
BTDTGet yourself a dictionary.
objective: existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality
subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thoughtComment
-
"Can HC actually read" does have an objective answer, and apparently it's a pretty depressing one.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostComment
-
Hm. I reread it. Yes now I see I said something dumb. Consider however, that there is a difference between "can read" and "does read"Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostIf there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
It would be stupid to, as a low wage worker, advocate an economic doctrine that works against your economic self interest. It's that simple.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostYeah you don't have to be self-interested to be smart.
EDIT: Wait Riesstiu said that. Was he being sarcastic?
Comment
-
Yep, the answer can be subjective even if the question is factual in nature. If you can't eliminate all but one of the possible answers, then you will only choose one answer over another out of personal preference.Originally posted by KuciwalkerComment
-
Originally posted by Riesstiu IV View Post
And when it comes to denying minimum wages and conditions to workers, eg by globalisation, it is only those who own a significant amount of capital or who are at the top end of the economic ladder who benefit.Comment
-
that's an even more contrived argument than Asher's deliberate misuse of "unemployment"
xpost
PS you are asserting that the answers to those questions are not only unknown but unknowable?Comment
-
Uh no, the people would have ****tier jobs otherwise. People go for the highest paying job, generally. So no, the people are benefiting. They're getting PAID. HELLO? DO YOU GET IT? THEY ARE GETTING PAID.Originally posted by ricketyclik View PostIf there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
I didn't misuse it, you just lack a lot of social skills that would aid you here in seeing how people may read the same sentence in different ways.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post that's an even more contrived argument than Asher's deliberate misuse of "unemployment"
If someone asks me if free trade causes unemployment, I'd say yes. This is because I know people who have lost their jobs because of free trade.
That's not misusing the term "unemployment". I'm not sure you understand what "unemployment" means. You seem to think it doesn't apply to friends and relatives of mine who collect unemployment insurance, while being unemployed, because of actions resulting from free trade agreements."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
Comment