Sauced and Confused (Lost Remix)

[Lost in the Sauce]

This idiot has been fighting its reflection for an hour.

 

[Soren]

While I subscribe to this train of thought, portions of society, and in some cases, powerful portions of society have determined that the truth is, in fact, subjective and malleable. There are any number of examples of this presently. One example is that if one has sex reassignment surgery they have, in fact, changed their sex. I will take this a step further. If one has not had sex reassignment surgery but, instead, makes the claim that they are no longer what/who they are then they have, in fact, changed. Maybe this reply will upset some people. Maybe it won't. I would think it will spur some interesting conversation amongst those who feel freely enough to speak their mind, at the very least.

Happy you found your cleaner Goby!

Yes, I think definitions are important and seem to agree with your opinions. The main issue I have, even though I joined in earlier and went against my main stance, is I prefer to keep politics out of discussion here on R2R so I often choose not to engage.

haha I thought you were being serious!
may as well get our news from The Onion given how accurately some of the mainstream reporting is.
At least we get something out of The Onion!

I thought there was some serious sentiment in the mention as well! As I mentioned previously, I think satire helps with knowing the news and how people see it as it typically helps us see both sides if honest with ourselves about biases and perceptive enough!

Also critical to recognizing our biases is "cross isle conversation". More and more so "we" are concerned with safe spaces and surrounding ourselves with like-minded people that we can lose sight of the validity of other opinions or world views. Some tanks run well with ultra low nutrients, some do better in dirty water. Maybe, just maybe there is room enough on this forum for both to be right. By way of metaphor (if you want to stay with lost's prompt) or not (if you want to stay with reefing).

Agreed. Though an absolute truth exists in all situations, it is impossible for any one of us to know for certain that we have interpreted it correctly or even perceived it. I struggle to put this sentiment into words.
This could go many ways, but it gets pretty philosophical very quickly. I rule thought by the philosophical principle:
Nothing can be proven absolutely true, only proven false. Something that cannot be proven false is the closest to the truth we can get. Therefore, I try to challenge my opinions regularly to see if or if not they can be proven false.

That's a good metaphor.

Agreed!

The conservative commentator and part owner of the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro has gone on record a few times asking people to diversify their input and think objectively for themselves.

I think he asked people to listen to his show, then a pod save America episode. Anyone not familiar with PSA, it is hosted by 4 former aides to former President Obama. In theory, they are total opposites on the spectrum.


I think there's something to be said for that.

This is how I think all news should be. If I think my opinion is based on the truth, I should not fear that it will be overthrown simply because someone heard a counter-opinion. My opinion should be strengthened by being able to counter any counter-opinions.
I think you mentioned earlier a thought I agree with: read news from both sides to try to interpret intentional or unintentional biases and understand the real news is probably somewhere in between.

 

[Lost in the Sauce]

I Honestly did not think Anyone, would think I was serious, recommending the onion as a recommended unbiased news source.

 

[Projects with Sam]

I Honestly did not think Anyone, would think I was serious, recommending the onion as a recommended unbiased news source.

Its like the court jester. A good temperature check. All we can doo is gather as many data points as we can before making a decision.

 

[rmorris_14]

This idiot has been fighting its reflection for an hour.

OMG that is so funny. Can you get that on video?

 

[shootingstar_reef]

You all still use TP?!

gosh... evolve already...

Thank you, bidet gang rise up

 

[Lost in the Sauce]

OMG that is so funny. Can you get that on video?

Sorry I missed getting a video.

 

[fishguy242]

Sorry I missed getting a video.

how can we believe you now?...

 

[crusso1993]

I Honestly did not think Anyone, would think I was serious, recommending the onion as a recommended unbiased news source.

I did not think anyone would view it as a serious reply either.

The idea that we concur is a little troubling.

 

[Soren]

I did not think anyone would view it as a serious reply either.

The idea that we concur is a little troubling.

To be clear, I did not actually think he was serious that The Onion was an unbiased news source, just that I do think some things about the news can be learned from satirical news sources since commentary is sort of about both biases in satire.

 

[Mschmidt]

You clearly underestimate my ability to anger people.

the point was more, they tread here, made it through 50-odd pages and presumably know you from elsewhere. they should know what they are in for. It's your thread say what you want as long as the tp goes the right way off the roll.

This idiot has been fighting its reflection for an hour.

who's winning?

Agreed. Though an absolute truth exists in all situations, it is impossible for any one of us to know for certain that we have interpreted it correctly or even perceived it. I struggle to put this sentiment into words.
This could go many ways, but it gets pretty philosophical very quickly. I rule thought by the philosophical principle:
Nothing can be proven absolutely true, only proven false. Something that cannot be proven false is the closest to the truth we can get. Therefore, I try to challenge my opinions regularly to see if or if not they can be proven false.

saying a thing can be fully defined (what I assume you mean in the first statement) has my eschatology tingling. But it takes humility to assume that maybe, just maybe my experience and worldview aren't the only one, nor the only valid one. That admission should take less humility than it does with some people, but here we are...

Even proving absolutely false is difficult, because more often than not "wrong" is caused by a perversion of the truth of a thing. take for example the shubunkin goldfish. There was a kernel of fish in there, but it has been skewed so much that it now no longer resembles a fish.

 

[MrsBugmaster]

BUT OVER OR UNDER?

The actual patten

 

[Lost in the Sauce]

It's your thread say what you want as long as the tp goes the right way off the roll.

Over or Under were my only options prior to today. Now knowing there can be a left and right way to pull it off is offending my delicate sensibilities.

who's winning?

I think gravity, technically won the fight. Idiot 1 kept falling off the pump while attempting to get a piece of idiot 2.

 

[Lost in the Sauce]

The actual patten

Edit: Reddit habits die hard.

 

[Soren]

saying a thing can be fully defined (what I assume you mean in the first statement) has my eschatology tingling. But it takes humility to assume that maybe, just maybe my experience and worldview aren't the only one, nor the only valid one. That admission should take less humility than it does with some people, but here we are...

Even proving absolutely false is difficult, because more often than not "wrong" is caused by a perversion of the truth of a thing. take for example the shubunkin goldfish. There was a kernel of fish in there, but it has been skewed so much that it now no longer resembles a fish.

No, I'm not saying a thing can be fully defined, just that there is an objective truth beyond our subjective thinking and senses that we cannot conclusively define due to our own limitations. For example: there is an exact reason each biological component of our reef ecosystems thrives or fails and wins out over, cohabitates, or loses to other biological components. Since we cannot observe every detail about every organism and understand all interactions, we only make educated guesses based on what we can observe. I would have to think about this more if I were to try to better put what I mean into words.
The statement about understanding my experiences and worldview do not define (nor ever will define) the only valid one is exactly part of what I am trying to get at. Realization of one's biases should bring enough humility to consider all perspectives in order to try to prove them instead of just being outright dismissive if it does not confirm my bias.

We also find agreement that proving absolutely false is difficult (and ultimately probably impossible depending on how specific or general the point). I don't mean proving "wrong" so much as disallowing logical fallacies to stand or to permit blatant contradictions to exist. I think we need to be consistent within what we believe to be true and be able to address why we do not agree with those who disagree with us rather than just "agreeing to disagree" in order to avoid discussion or because we realize that we don't actually understand deeply enough what we do believe to be able to counter an argument against our belief. It goes deep into what I think can only be described as "faith" in something. I don't just mean this in sense of religion or theology, but rather that we all believe things that we cannot prove exactly to those around us because we believe without having an exact sight of what it is we believe, or maybe that we cannot express exactly how the belief applies to what we expect of others. Maybe we should always dig deeper to understand the purpose or goal of what we believe and how we prove our beliefs, even those so deep as to be hidden to our conscious thought at times, through the way we choose to act.

In the end, philosophical thinking, in my opinion, should lead us to have a common respect for each person we interact with even if we disagree. It does not mean all opinions are "right", but disagreement should not result in a loss of respect for each other. Maybe this is to say that I appreciate humility in others and should strive to be humble? We should back what we say with an argument, or statement of why we think something, rather than resorting to arguing (disagreement of beliefs where neither side can make headway because neither side will offer the reasons for the belief so they can be critiqued by opponents).

I do enjoy philosophical discussion for a practical purpose in the end. This might be getting too unrelated for a reef forum and Lost's thread, though...

 

[crusso1993]

No, I'm not saying a thing can be fully defined, just that there is an objective truth beyond our subjective thinking and senses that we cannot conclusively define due to our own limitations. For example: there is an exact reason each biological component of our reef ecosystems thrives or fails and wins out over, cohabitates, or loses to other biological components. Since we cannot observe every detail about every organism and understand all interactions, we only make educated guesses based on what we can observe. I would have to think about this more if I were to try to better put what I mean into words.
The statement about understanding my experiences and worldview do not define (nor ever will define) the only valid one is exactly part of what I am trying to get at. Realization of one's biases should bring enough humility to consider all perspectives in order to try to prove them instead of just being outright dismissive if it does not confirm my bias.

We also find agreement that proving absolutely false is difficult (and ultimately probably impossible depending on how specific or general the point). I don't mean proving "wrong" so much as disallowing logical fallacies to stand or to permit blatant contradictions to exist. I think we need to be consistent within what we believe to be true and be able to address why we do not agree with those who disagree with us rather than just "agreeing to disagree" in order to avoid discussion or because we realize that we don't actually understand deeply enough what we do believe to be able to counter an argument against our belief. It goes deep into what I think can only be described as "faith" in something. I don't just mean this in sense of religion or theology, but rather that we all believe things that we cannot prove exactly to those around us because we believe without having an exact sight of what it is we believe, or maybe that we cannot express exactly how the belief applies to what we expect of others. Maybe we should always dig deeper to understand the purpose or goal of what we believe and how we prove our beliefs, even those so deep as to be hidden to our conscious thought at times, through the way we choose to act.

In the end, philosophical thinking, in my opinion, should lead us to have a common respect for each person we interact with even if we disagree. It does not mean all opinions are "right", but disagreement should not result in a loss of respect for each other. Maybe this is to say that I appreciate humility in others and should strive to be humble? We should back what we say with an argument, or statement of why we think something, rather than resorting to arguing (disagreement of beliefs where neither side can make headway because neither side will offer the reasons for the belief so they can be critiqued by opponents).

I do enjoy philosophical discussion for a practical purpose in the end. This might be getting too unrelated for a reef forum and Lost's thread, though...

I have seen the enemy and he is me. (Altered from original.)

 

[Mschmidt]

No, I'm not saying a thing can be fully defined, just that there is an objective truth beyond our subjective thinking and senses that we cannot conclusively define due to our own limitations. For example: there is an exact reason each biological component of our reef ecosystems thrives or fails and wins out over, cohabitates, or loses to other biological components. Since we cannot observe every detail about every organism and understand all interactions, we only make educated guesses based on what we can observe. I would have to think about this more if I were to try to better put what I mean into words.
The statement about understanding my experiences and worldview do not define (nor ever will define) the only valid one is exactly part of what I am trying to get at. Realization of one's biases should bring enough humility to consider all perspectives in order to try to prove them instead of just being outright dismissive if it does not confirm my bias.

We also find agreement that proving absolutely false is difficult (and ultimately probably impossible depending on how specific or general the point). I don't mean proving "wrong" so much as disallowing logical fallacies to stand or to permit blatant contradictions to exist. I think we need to be consistent within what we believe to be true and be able to address why we do not agree with those who disagree with us rather than just "agreeing to disagree" in order to avoid discussion or because we realize that we don't actually understand deeply enough what we do believe to be able to counter an argument against our belief. It goes deep into what I think can only be described as "faith" in something. I don't just mean this in sense of religion or theology, but rather that we all believe things that we cannot prove exactly to those around us because we believe without having an exact sight of what it is we believe, or maybe that we cannot express exactly how the belief applies to what we expect of others. Maybe we should always dig deeper to understand the purpose or goal of what we believe and how we prove our beliefs, even those so deep as to be hidden to our conscious thought at times, through the way we choose to act.

In the end, philosophical thinking, in my opinion, should lead us to have a common respect for each person we interact with even if we disagree. It does not mean all opinions are "right", but disagreement should not result in a loss of respect for each other. Maybe this is to say that I appreciate humility in others and should strive to be humble? We should back what we say with an argument, or statement of why we think something, rather than resorting to arguing (disagreement of beliefs where neither side can make headway because neither side will offer the reasons for the belief so they can be critiqued by opponents).

I do enjoy philosophical discussion for a practical purpose in the end. This might be getting too unrelated for a reef forum and Lost's thread, though...

I, too enjoy this discussion. As evidenced by my presence here today, and my absence when the bananas come out. ATM my brain is sticking, its been a whole day of heavy, not just here. I will say as a final statement, I agree with what I understand you to be saying. It is heavier perhaps than Lost was expecting, but he is the one who asked where we get our news and teed it up to lead to a deeper discussion.

I am reminded of dude's words "an unexamined life is not worth living".

 

[tbrown]

Sorry guys, it's time for a rip clean for sure.

 

[Lost in the Sauce]

I, too enjoy this discussion. As evidenced by my presence here today, and my absence when the bananas come out. ATM my brain is sticking, its been a whole day of heavy, not just here. I will say as a final statement, I agree with what I understand you to be saying. It is heavier perhaps than Lost was expecting, but he is the one who asked where we get our news and teed it up to lead to a deeper discussion.

I am reminded of dude's words "an unexamined life is not worth living".

I Three, enjoy this discussion, and discussion like it. Be respectful, debate in good faith and don't get my thread locked (still got a backup and we good.


@Soren absolutely triggers my TLDR tendencies, but that was well put and you and I agree on many parts.

 

[fishguy242]

@danieyella said COOKIES somewhere...