The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

"Legislation should be based on...."

You're just encouraging the lie. When you say "their truth", you make the term meaningless.

If it isn't the same for all (local) observers, it isn't truth.

I am just reminding you that truth is how we perceive it.

Just as you perceive gun ownership differently from the rest of us here.
 
If it isn't the same for all (local) observers, it isn't truth.

Is God an objective fact? If so, of which God do we speak? Yours? Mine? His? Maria's quaint little conglomeration of ghouls and godlets?

Is the Bible an objective fact? If so, which Bible?

Is the US Constitution an objective fact?

Is Ireland an objective fact? Are the Irish objective facts?

Am I an objective fact?

We could play The Seven Blind Men and the Elephant, with me being the pachyderm in question, and I could give you seven or more people to interview, and you would be pretty well guaranteed to get a selection of views so divergent you wouldn't know they were all of the same person.
 
Is God an objective fact? If so, of which God do we speak? Yours? Mine? His? Maria's quaint little conglomeration of ghouls and godlets?

Is the Bible an objective fact? If so, which Bible?

Is the US Constitution an objective fact?

Is Ireland an objective fact? Are the Irish objective facts?

Am I an objective fact?

We could play The Seven Blind Men and the Elephant, with me being the pachyderm in question, and I could give you seven or more people to interview, and you would be pretty well guaranteed to get a selection of views so divergent you wouldn't know they were all of the same person.

Yeah, playing semantic hidey hole is just, as has been famously stated, is just intellectual masturbation, in FACT a tree falling in the woods does make a sound and the sound of one hand clapping is silence.

What you are describing is perspective. Truth used to mean something was true, now people insist all perspectives are "true" and since none of them are fact, "true" ceases to mean anything at all.

What is FACT is that if all of those people you want to interview fell off the cliff together - no doubt their "truths" about that would differ, but the fact is they all are going splat at the bottom just the same.
 
Ah, I see. I guess I'll bow out then. When the discussion is predicated upon a term which has no actual definition, or where the meanings of the term are so arcane that they cannot be shared with those of us of lesser intelligence, then there's really no point in our even trying to participate.
 
Is God an objective fact? If so, of which God do we speak? Yours? Mine? His? Maria's quaint little conglomeration of ghouls and godlets?

Is the Bible an objective fact? If so, which Bible?

Is the US Constitution an objective fact?

Is Ireland an objective fact? Are the Irish objective facts?

Am I an objective fact?

We could play The Seven Blind Men and the Elephant, with me being the pachyderm in question, and I could give you seven or more people to interview, and you would be pretty well guaranteed to get a selection of views so divergent you wouldn't know they were all of the same person.

In the blind men and the elephant scenario, there are no common local observers -- that's the point of the story: none of them are "observing" the same thing at all.

And if you are "the pachyderm in question", then what is being examined is your body. If seven people who have examined your entire body thoroughly have no agreement at all among them, then you have a strange body indeed.
 
Ah, I see. I guess I'll bow out then. When the discussion is predicated upon a term which has no actual definition, or where the meanings of the term are so arcane that they cannot be shared with those of us of lesser intelligence, then there's really no point in our even trying to participate.

He gave you an "actual definition", and it's very simple.

It works out to this: legislation could not be based on how those people understood (felt about, mostly) the experience, only on the reality that they were all subject to gravity and went "splat".
 
Back
Top