It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I've refused to communicate with people after I realized that they didn't care about truth many times. The reason is simple for me, I don't know how to deal with them. You can present facts and valid arguments but it means nothing if the other person won't recognize the existence of those things.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about to illustrate:

I had a disagreement with someone over the number of private messages we had exchanged during a period of time. The other person gave their definition of a private message and they determined the number of private messages we had exchanged based on their definition. I replied, not using my own definition, but using the definition from the Oxford dictionary of a "private message." The other person attempted to make an argument as to why the Oxford dictionary definition was wrong (using no source(s) other than their own opinion) and then they declared themselves the absolute winner of the debate based on their own definition/opinion which was backed up by nothing.

As one may expect, the person I was debating with had a long history of using the same method of operation I described above:

1. State your opinion to be absolute truth using only yourself as the source.

2. Declare yourself to be the winner of the argument/debate based on your opinion.

How is that different from playing "God"? Declaring your opinion to be absolute truth based on nothing but your own opinion...you've just declared yourself to be the master of the universe as far as I'm concerned.

I cut off my relationship with the person above. I'm very glad I did, I would have gone crazy trying to deal with them.

When I notice I'm dealing with a person in the workplace who doesn't care about truth, I try to stay clear of that person as much as possible. I'm lucky because I can do that.

For those who aren't so lucky...

How do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?
edit on 15-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
You don't, I don't. I speak to people and I'll hang out with them. But dumb is dumb especially when it's chosen. Make no mistake, many/most times it is.

I heard it plenty: "it's too much", it's paralyzingly and a complete shock having to accept something you simply aren't ready to. Some whoppers are so big the mind has a much easier time knowingly accepting a lie to keep the storyline intact than to accept truth and have to deal with the prospect of relearning everything you thought you knew.

Or some people are just hard up on being dumb. *shrugs*



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The way you are using truth is subjective.

If you had argued that Webster's dictionary says something they could not argue that fact because, the dictionary does in fact say that. Interpretations beyond that can be matters of opinion.

You have posted that if someone does not eventually give in to you, you don't bother. Who cares what they think? Just agree to disagree and move on. Don't argue things with that person.

I don't believe in writing people off because they have different opinions than me.

There are few, if any, absolute truths.


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Who argues about the number of private messages they've exchanged with another person? If that is the truth you or the person you were arguing with are worried about...you probably want to reevaluate what matters in life.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The example which you use could be at the heart of the problem. Semantic drift is a real phenomenon, and it stands to reason that some of the disagreements you have with these people are nothing more than pedantry. Especially when the subject over which you disagreed is so vague. By "private message" do you mean the kind you can send on ATS to another user? Do you mean to imply that the contents of the message need to be private to be tallied among your list? These two qualifiers alone will dramatically change the results because what you consider private, and what this other person considers private, may be mutually exclusive, and neither of you has the right to determine for the other what constitutes private information.


~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
For myself personally..... I tend to turn the other cheek so to speak. If I know (or think) I'm right in a given argument, and a person refuses to concede after I present my argument/facts, I let it go. Either I am wrong, they are ignorant, I am ignorant or they are right.

In my short time on earth, I've seen people stick to their beliefs 95%of the time. Even IF they are provided with concrete facts that go against their personal interpretation.

When I can, I always agree to disagree. Life is short, and you are never right all of the time.

The more friends you have, the better off you'll be. Don't sever an individual from your life over a petty argument. (aka "private messages"??)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at, but it is possible you are a stickler for pedantic and absolutist definitions, insisting on dictionary definitions rather than more common or colloquial definitions. I'll give you an example. Please note that this MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU, but if you can see a glimmer of truth here, it may be helpful.

Long time ago I meat a "genius" young man. He really was, and he certainly had been treated as one. I made the mistake of using the word "cool" in a sentence that indicated approval of something rather than the temperature. He responded to me that my use of the word "cool" was incorrect because it was a definition of temperature.

I think my jaw dropped at this point. So I told him,

"Words mean what people want them to mean, and if the majority of people easily understand that the word "cool" stands for something they feel positive about, that's what it means. You are being "prescriptive" meaning that you are insisting on a dictionary definition where I am being "descriptive," using the word like the majority of people in fact do use it. That doesn't mean "cool" does not have a definition related to temperature, but that's not the only definition, and it's up to you to be smart enough to know the difference."

So I don't know exactly what your issue is, OP, but if you are being prescriptive, it's your problem. If you are being descriptive and talking about the difference between an objective truth and an outright lie, that's a different issue. It's the difference between fighting over definitions versus fighting over honesty.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

How do you have a relationship with someone who doesn't care about truth?

Everyone has their own take on "the truth". Doesn't mean we have to argue about it.

I mean, do you want real relationships with people or would you rather just surround yourself with people who think and act like you do (or convert them to so doing).

Everyone has their own little clique, of course, but I think life would be rather mundane if everyone had the same take on "truth", where it lies and how to discover it.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
The way you are using truth is subjective.

If you had argued that Webster's dictionary says something they could not argue that fact because, the dictionary does in fact say that. Interpretations beyond that can be matters of opinion.

You have posted that if someone does not eventually give in to you, you don't bother. Who cares what they think? Just agree to disagree and move on. Don't argue things with that person.

I don't believe in writing people off because they have different opinions than me.

There are few, if any, absolute truths.


Whether or not the definition of "private message" is 'subjective' is irrelevant to what I'm trying to express IMHO. I'm not saying that the other person must agree with the dictionary definition of a "private message" but...

I do have a stronger case as to what a "private message" is by using the dictionary definition as the basis for my position than the case they have by using nothing but their opinion as the basis for their position.

Why?

Because before a definition gets published in the Oxford dictionary for something like "private message", the definition being published has been determined by experts to be the correct definition.

I was backing up my case with expert opinion. They were backing up their case with their "lay opinion" (which means absolutely nothing).

That is the truth they were denying. I see you're denying it as well.

What you're arguing is that "'lay opinion' is equal to expert opinion and it's all 'subjective'"...

If you're doing that, you're denying the basis of all of society, for instance:

The "Lay Opinion" Rule

Would I argue that society is always right about everything and that experts are always right? Absolutely not.

But, to claim that "lay opinion" is equal to expert opinion is antithetical to reality, generally speaking IMHO. Especially when it comes to a technical issue such as the definition of a "private message." Anyone arguing that "lay opinion" is equal to expert opinion in such a case has no credibility with me on the issue.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion'

Woah, where in what I said did I posit that lay opinion is equal to "expert" opinion?

I argued that they are both OPINIONS.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

Because before a definition gets published in the Oxford dictionary for something like "private message", the definition being published has been determined by experts to be the correct definition.

I was backing up my case with expert opinion. They were backing up their case with their "lay opinion" (which means absolutely nothing).


No, you weren't. The Oxford English Dictionary is a "descriptive" dictionary. Webster's Second is a "prescriptive" dictionary. The difference is that a "prescriptive" dictionary tells you how you ought to speak and a "descriptive" dictionary tells you how you do, in fact, speak. The trend is to descriptive dictionaries, as Webster's Third and Fourth are. This was a major historical change in how dictionaries have been published.

The Oxford English Dictionary's claim to fame is (1) that it is exhaustive and (2) that it documents the usage of words. So, for example, if you look up the definition of a given word it will tell you when the first use of that word has been found and, where appropriate, tell you the changes in that word over time. For example, if you look up the word "woman" it will tell you that it is derived from the Old English "wyfeman" (woman-man), or "wife of a man." It will even go back further, such as to the Dutch origins. You can trace the changes in language in its pages, and it documents every citation, telling you when the words were first used in print. That's rare for a dictionary and the reason the thing is so huge. In the first library I worked in the thing took up four feet of shelf space in huge, heavy volumes.

The "experts" who wrote the Oxford English Dictionary are not giving their "expert" opinions as much as teaching you history. Given what you have said so far leads me to believe that your opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary is not based on any expertise, and is instead a "lay" one, much to your chagrin, I'm sure.
edit on 2/15/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
There are a lot of people in the world.

I try to associate with people that I enjoy.

If I don't enjoy their company, then why would I spend time with them?

That doesn't mean they are bad people, it just means I'm not connecting with them.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
You don't, I don't. I speak to people and I'll hang out with them. But dumb is dumb especially when it's chosen. Make no mistake, many/most times it is.

I heard it plenty: "it's too much", it's paralyzingly and a complete shock having to accept something you simply aren't ready to. Some whoppers are so big the mind has a much easier time knowingly accepting a lie to keep the storyline intact than to accept truth and have to deal with the prospect of relearning everything you thought you knew.

Or some people are just hard up on being dumb. *shrugs*


I used a silly example in my original post but I was trying to get at something very serious. The following threads really hit home how important of an issue this is:

DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

Republican National Committee member on nomination process: “This is the greatest hoax ever.”

Despite the above, admissions by experts (and members) from the RNC and DNC that the primary process is rigged, most posters here will continue to buy into the charades that the nomination process has any validity at all.

Why?

It's because of what I discussed in my last post. It's the delusional belief that their opinion is equal to the opinion of experts. Sometimes it is but it usually isn't.

And in the case of the US presidential election, we know for sure that the people who were speaking in the threads above know more about their own organizations than almost anyone here.

But, that will not stop people here from wasting countless hours discussing things that have no bearing on reality, that aren't connected to reality at all. Why?

Because they believe their opinion is equal to or better than the opinions of experts...based on nothing but their own opinion.

As I tried to describe in the original post, there's no point in trying to reason with them because they ignore anything they don't want to hear IMHO. Look at the thread about the DNC above, ONLY 5 REPLIES about something so crucial.

I guess realizing that the whole primary process is rigged may detract from their gushing about "Bernie"...

We wouldn't want a little thing like reality to get in the way of delusion.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: Profusion'

Woah, where in what I said did I posit that lay opinion is equal to "expert" opinion?

I argued that they are both OPINIONS.




This is what you wrote:


originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
The way you are using truth is subjective.


With the above statement, you're saying that both expert opinion and "lay opinion" are subjective. And since there is no higher or lower level to subjectivity, you're claiming that the two types of opinion are equal.


originally posted by: schuyler
No, you weren't. The Oxford English Dictionary is a "descriptive" dictionary. Webster's Second is a "prescriptive" dictionary. The difference is that a "prescriptive" dictionary tells you how you ought to speak and a "descriptive" dictionary tells you how you do, in fact, speak. The trend is to descriptive dictionaries, as Webster's Third and Fourth are. This was a major historical change in how dictionaries have been published.


Can you back up your claims above with a source (other than yourself)?

I used the following in my debate:

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The reason I chose that dictionary is because it was the only one I could find that had a definition of "private message." If you think that the definition could be placed in that dictionary without consulting experts, can you provide a source for that claim?

To back up my assertion that Oxford does rely on expert opinion for its definitions, I'll give you a source:

How a new word enters an Oxford dictionary



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion



As I tried to describe in the original post, there's no point in trying to reason with them because they ignore anything they don't want to hear IMHO.


I believe you're leaving out perspective. Yours is your own and nobody else's.

Might I suggest getting along with people by not insisting they see things the same as you. Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
you are only fighting with yourself if you choose not be at peace with the fact that others have differing opinions then your own.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Yes, they are opinions. People may have a different opinions on what is "truth." Just because their opinion is not supported as well as yours doesn't change the nature of it, i.e., an opinion.

You don't have to agree with someone's opinion. You can show contrary evidence. Doesn't change the fact that it is their opinion.

There are times, for example, in court cases where there are competing expect opinions. Can I not disagree with an expert? If the assertions that support my opinion are misguided, you can tell me that my opinion is misguided. If I incorrectly state FACTS, you can tell me what the correct FACTS are. I may still have a different opinion than you.

You are equating expert opinions as absolute facts. The only absolute fact they represent is that they are, in fact, an OPINION of an "expert" (a designation likely based on some form of criteria that I may not agree supports my understanding of an expert but which I must admit meets that criteria for the designation of an expert as used for purposes of this discussion).

Again, your post is that you don't associate with people who don't agree with your OPINIONS.

If you told me that the person was arguing that carrots do not, in fact, grow under ground, or that your house does not, in fact, have a roof, I would see your point. Because someone will not oblige your opinion, regardless whether it is supported by expert opinion, is different.

You're free to only associate with people who agree with your opinions and the opinions you rely on to form those opinions.

It is my choice not to conduct myself in that fashion.


edit on 15-2-2016 by ExNihiloRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

Can you back up your claims above with a source (other than yourself)?


Take a look at my avatar. (Not the picture) I have dealt with and studied these issues these issues my entire career. I have also written two dictionaries myself. I AM the source in this case. After reading your posts it is also clear to me that you are extraordinarily emotional about this issue. You claim the high ground, and you don't have it. You're jumping from messages to campaigns with no intermediary. And your insistence on only your definition of words is bordering on obsessive compulsive. I really don't think you have a case. The Oxford English dictionary is a DESCRIPTIVE dictionary. Get over it.

My advice, and this time it is lay advice, is for the person in your relationship here to avoid you. It's just not worth it.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Did you think this private conversation was with this one person and he/she said something to someone else that you thought was told in confidence? And now that person is saying that not all of the message were private?
That's the feeling I'm getting since you seem to be so worked up about this. ...



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


Just because you think, it is the truth does not mean your right, respect every body’s way of thinking and just accept who they are.

‘Nobody thinks alike in this world’




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join