[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

glatt and stormieweather gave perfectly good examples of what I was describing. Having seen how BlueSky_The Man analyzed them, changed the parameters and went off tangentially, I can see how he thinks....or doesn't.

I think it's flawed logic.
Occam is spinning in his grave.
I will never agree with that approach to any question.
I think it would be fruitless to even enter into a discussion of it.
If anyone, buys his reasoning....fine, have at it.
I don't and prefer not to waste my time.

I feel funny talking about another poster but since you addressed my question by referring glatt and stormie about bluesky I should say what I see.


I'm looking and I only see postitive. Blue Sky is affirming their beliefs and thoughts by positive affirmations. In the discussion between stormy and bluesky there was a lot of give and take.

Even with Glatt I saw bluesky not try to tear down but build up their own beliefs before presenting his own. Somehow I think that's cool.



Here is bluesky affirming their beliefs.

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

Hi Glatt !

Your perception of the cousins advice sounds logical and I would guess acceptable to the majority of people.

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

Stormie,

I really, really, really, really love your post. It is exactly the type of thoughtful and kind discussion that is needed to allow us to learn from each other.

I respectfully add my reflections as follows:




You have a knack for explaining things clearly. Is teaching a part of your current lifework?

Originally Posted by stormieweather

Originally Posted by Stormieweather
Tolerance allows us to understand that everyone has their own 'truth', even when it is directly opposed to our own. Understanding it doesn't mean condoning or accepting it, just that we acknowledge that others feel as strongly about their truths as we do about our own.

Bluesky picked out this part of stormies comments to quote and then replied with a beautiful.

Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan

Beautiful!

As far as buying his reasoning?? How about just reading it and picking out the best parts?? Isn't that what we do in a discussion is pick out those ones we like or don't like.I think if you arn't going to like something you should give your own examples.

I picked out the affirmation of others comments and I forgot the rest because typed words on a message board don't equal major thought process changes do they? You picked out the negative aspects and forgot the rest. We are only bantering ideas back and forth and I actually miss hearing a reasoning argument from you bruce. Lastly, You might be surprised with whom I actually do agree with regardless of what little part of me I type out because untimatly it isn't the whole truth is it? Anyway who I agree with is 9th Engineer and his thought was this.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I think that the word 'truth' is being misused here. Truths rarely exist outside of science, and things that change in different contexts (or persons) are not truths. When people have been saying things like 'that persons truths' it's not really a set of truths that's being refered to, rather, that persons beliefs. Saying that a person has a unique set of truths is pointless because it completely takes all meaning out of the word. That person might feel very strongly about something, but if it doesn't hold true under all circumstances it cannot be a truth.

The whole idea sounds like something you'd hear a motivational speaker use, it just allows people to get wrapped up in their view of the world because it's their truth (said with nose held high) and no one has a right to challenge a truth.

Or maybe it's the stigma surrounding the word 'belief' these days. Being PC sucks.

I think 9th Engineer wraps it up for me.