[abe]

Welcome to "The Age of Deniability."

"Welcome to "The Age of Deniability." A time when every story has at least two sides and it no longer matters if you are right just as long as you have a good argument."

Do you think we have reached the point where truth no longer matters as long as you have a good argument?

Are we truly living in "The Age of Deniability?"

[cjrivera]

I refuse to believe that we are in "The Age of Deniability"...

[turtle777]

Well, you're not there yet !
Haha, j/k.
-t

[Mithras]

By your definition, I believe we entered the Age of Deniability circa 450 BC.

[brassplayersrock²]

Turtle!!!!!!!!

btw, shouldn't this be in the poli lounge?

[peeb]

This is the Fox model of balanced coverage:
"Random person says Moon is made of Blue Cheese, on the other hand, some scientist says it isn't - we report, you decide". Any point of view, no matter how stupid or minor, is given equal time with any other.

[design219]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is the Fox model of balanced coverage:
Any point of view, no matter how stupid or minor, is given equal time with any other.

Just to be fair, some people may disagree.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

btw, shouldn't this be in the poli lounge?

No, thats unpossible, since abe is banned from the Lounge.

So by default, it all goes here

-t

[brassplayersrock²]

he should get his own lounge where only he can post and that no one else can see

[abe]

In another thread a good, kind, responsible and wise person said they did a thing for one reason when it was also intended to achieve more than one result, or it was ostensibly for one reason but was actually for another.

Stating or doing something in an intentionally ambiguous manner may become the new zenith of our societal ethos.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by abe 

Do you think we have reached the point where truth no longer matters as long as you have a good argument?

Absolutely. The concept of absolute, black-and-white truth is considered archaic and politically incorrect. Which is a shame, if you ask me. Real truth doesn't matter as long as you can find enough people to support what you want the truth to be.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by abe 

In another thread a good, kind, responsible and wise person said they did a thing for one reason when it was also intended to achieve more than one result, or it was ostensibly for one reason but was actually for another.

Stating or doing something in an intentionally ambiguous manner may become the new zenith of our societal ethos.

Wow, you lost me there.

Would you mind cutting to the chase ?

-t

[brassplayersrock²]

"The concept of absolute, black-and-white truth is considered archaic and politically incorrect"

religion

[abe]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

he should get his own lounge where only he can post and that no one else can see

I already have one.

And you are permanently banned from that forum.

[brassplayersrock²]

fu blocked your isp though

[abe]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Absolutely. The concept of absolute, black-and-white truth is considered archaic and politically incorrect. Which is a shame, if you ask me. Real truth doesn't matter as long as you can find enough people to support what you want the truth to be.

In the heartland of America and among those of a quickly vanishing generation, plain speaking was common. And the highest goal was to be able to say what you meant, mean what you said, be truthful, say it in as few words as possible, trying hard not to step on too many toes too badly and if possible, to say it in a humorous way.

It has become almost fashionable to speak of real truth and to recognize the many differing points of view there may be.

And as a spectator or reporter that remove may be invaluable.

But from the perspective of the average human being, recognition of many different truths only complicates what we should strive to make more understandable.

[abe]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

fu blocked your isp though

And who be Fu?

Fu Man Chew?

[Dork.]

I believe this is an unintended consequence of the PC movement, social promotion, relativism, and other efforts to value feelings and emotions over merit and reason. When we are forced to avoid constructive criticism and taught that everything is relative, then anything can be justified, no matter how absurd. Simply holding an opinion justifies that opinion, and anyone who does not allow that opinion to be considered is being intolerant and closed-minded, even if the opinion is not logical.

I am also of the opinion that this thread, while well-intentioned, belongs in the PL, where we can give it the quality level of discourse we have come to expect from such a place.

[abe]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is the Fox model of balanced coverage:
"Random person says Moon is made of Blue Cheese, on the other hand, some scientist says it isn't - we report, you decide". Any point of view, no matter how stupid or minor, is given equal time with any other.

Please view this post as a bit of an aside which I hope won't derail the thread.

IMHO, the only way to get around that is to have MUCH smarter, and even more importantly, MUCH WISER people working as News Gatekeepers otherwise known as Editors.

And the only way to get people of that caliber working at it is to put the expert pundits we now see in front of the camera like Krauthammer, Novak and Will behind the scenes instead and pay them insane amounts of money to tell us what we need to know and dispense with the equal time nonsense when it is nonsense.

That is where some of you will jump up and scream. And that is why it would take someone who was really smart, really wise, really fair minded and someone really well informed on a variety of subjects. People like that are few in number. And the fact is that because most people ARE so limited in their knowledge, imaginations, experience and intellect, they can't envision that anyone at all exists who might live up to the challenge.

I think they'd be surprised.

If a single individual is entrusted with the leadership of a giant like Apple, Inc., despite it's many different products, manufacturing plants, stores, transactions, parts, subcontractors, procedures, employees and etc. I think it's possible for a single individual to deliver a unified view of world events on a regular, on-going basis that makes it unnecessary to have every single statement to be represented by an opposing opinion, no matter that it be lame.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I believe this is an unintended consequence of the PC movement, social promotion, relativism, and other efforts to value feelings and emotions over merit and reason. When we are forced to avoid constructive criticism and taught that everything is relative, then anything can be justified, no matter how absurd. Simply holding an opinion justifies that opinion, and anyone who does not allow that opinion to be considered is being intolerant and closed-minded, even if the opinion is not logical.

I am also of the opinion that this thread, while well-intentioned, belongs in the PL, where we can give it the quality level of discourse we have come to expect from such a place.

Sure. Why not?

Raising the questions is, perhaps, the most important part of the process.

I've done my part.

Farewell little bird.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe 

Do you think we have reached the point where truth no longer matters as long as you have a good argument?

No.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No.

Yet it becomes more apparent by the day that a good plausible excuse can help us avoid so much unpleasantness. And because of that ambiguity is increasingly seen as the smartest policy. CYA* all the way.

*Cover your a**.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe 

Do you think we have reached the point where truth no longer matters as long as you have a good argument?

No. If I have a good argument, I have little reason to believe I don't have the truth. If there were some absolute source of truth, we could use that instead, but we don't, so we have to go with probability. That is why good arguments matter.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Absolutely. The concept of absolute, black-and-white truth is considered archaic and politically incorrect. Which is a shame, if you ask me. Real truth doesn't matter as long as you can find enough people to support what you want the truth to be.

Truthiness

V

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No. If I have a good argument, I have little reason to believe I don't have the truth. If there were some absolute source of truth, we could use that instead, but we don't, so we have to go with probability. That is why good arguments matter.

And then I would ask, 'if we seem to all agree that the discord and division and levels of disagreement in society are now so great, deep and frequent these days, why wasn't that the case in days of yore?'

Was there an absolute source of truth in the old days that no longer exists today?

[Uncle Skeleton]

The very first US presidential race was just as venemous as the ones we have today.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by abe 

And then I would ask, 'if we seem to all agree that the discord and division and levels of disagreement in society are now so great, deep and frequent these days, why wasn't that the case in days of yore?'

Was there an absolute source of truth in the old days that no longer exists today?

No. What is perpetual is the sensation that there was an order, unity, and truth in the "old days" that is now lost.

Edit: In before the PL redirect!

[brassplayersrock²]

"edit: in before PL redirect!"

if it ever happens

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe 

Was there an absolute source of truth in the old days that no longer exists today?

Again, no.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Again, no.

Is that absolutely true?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe 

And then I would ask, 'if we seem to all agree that the discord and division and levels of disagreement in society are now so great, deep and frequent these days, why wasn't that the case in days of yore?'

Was there an absolute source of truth in the old days that no longer exists today?

The question is based on the faulty premise that people always agreed in the past.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

btw, shouldn't this be in the poli lounge?

Besson just might stop being your friend over that.

Yes that was a joke folks.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Absolutely. The concept of absolute, black-and-white truth is considered archaic and politically incorrect. Which is a shame, if you ask me. Real truth doesn't matter as long as you can find enough people to support what you want the truth to be.

I think this is only true if the concept of absolute, black-and-white truth exists in the first place. abe can go on talking about the heart of America and plain-speaking toes-stepping heroes all he wants, but the harsh, plain truth is that those people were often speaking complete nonsense and utter lies. You want to see evil racism and pure bigotry? No need to look further than where abe directs. (Take that hero Andrew Jackson, who probably epitomizes those "America's heartland" qualities abe idolizes, and yet who also epitomizes the same lies and evil I've pointed out.)

I think lpkmckenna has already pointed out something similar, although in less words.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I believe this is an unintended consequence of the PC movement, social promotion, relativism, and other efforts to value feelings and emotions over merit and reason. When we are forced to avoid constructive criticism and taught that everything is relative, then anything can be justified, no matter how absurd. Simply holding an opinion justifies that opinion, and anyone who does not allow that opinion to be considered is being intolerant and closed-minded, even if the opinion is not logical.

I agree, but I think a distinction has to be made between the "truth", which abe is talking about, and "holding an opinion." I'm a huge believer in free speech and one's right to hold whatever opinion one wants, be it popular or unpopular. When you start talking about "truth," however, it becomes a different story – because, of course, "truth" only stems from one's opinion of the raw data.


greg

[Wiskedjak]

What is "truth"?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I think this is only true if the concept of absolute, black-and-white truth exists in the first place.

We certainly used to have absolute truths, which were not necessarily tied to any religious belief or dogma. Sexual exploitation of children, for instance, is considered globally wrong in every country on this planet. Even in third world countries, where fathers sell their grade school daughters into prostitution, I doubt they'd tell you they thought it was morally right, but that they had no choice but to do it to feed the rest of their families.

But on that same note, you have an organization like NAMBLA which, while it has just about fallen off the face of the earth, certainly still exists, and there are certainly still people who vehemently want to believe that it's "okay" to have a sexual relationship with a child.

But what about fifty years from now? In the name of "progression" and "open-mindedness", will our society learn to accept such a moral atrocity? I wouldn't be so sure as to say "no" anymore. We've carefully trained ourselves to turn a blind eye to things that fifty or sixty years ago would have been considered flat-out inappropriate, wrong, or morally corrupt. Our society wants morals to be relative...that doesn't mean that they necessarily are.

[Kevin]

There IS an absolute truth. What we believe that is however, is an opinion.

I feel we all have a conscience. We were all built with the ability to discern right from wrong.

We can also brainwash ourselves into believing a new view of morals or morality. We can even do it society wide by controlling what the people see via the media. If we constantly attempt to justify our wrong doings with denying it, and justifying it, then we believe we did nothing wrong. We at first do this not to convince others, but to convince ourselves. The people who do this you'll often find are also very venomous when defending said deniability.

What gives me hope for THESE people is, they are not lost yet. Obviously they still have a conscience or they wouldn't be bothered if someone believes otherwise.

I believe after many years of lying to yourself, and distorting the truth, you tend to lose grasp of what is truthful. What is moral. What is common sense. Your version of the world is now different because you've let the lies you've made to justify your actions take over your life. And you start believing it yourself.

I see a conscience as sort of a real person. A voice of reason. Like anyone else, if you ignore them long enough, they will stop talking to you. And then you're lost for good. Of course this is all MHO. And any deniers please no attacks.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The question is based on the faulty premise that people always agreed in the past.

I never said that.

And then I would ask, 'if we seem to all agree that the discord and division and levels of disagreement in society are now so great, deep and frequent these days, why wasn't that the case in days of yore?'

Was there an absolute source of truth in the old days that no longer exists today?

And do we see here a less than perfect example of my practicing deniability?

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

We certainly used to have absolute truths...

Yeah. Like "colored only".

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. Like "colored only".

Ah yes...that makes sense. Bring up things that are not related to moral absolutes.

Because sticking it in a four year old boy is totally the same as racism.

WTF?

[abe]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Ah yes...that makes sense. Bring up things that are not related to moral absolutes.

Because sticking it in a four year old boy is totally the same as racism.

WTF?

Thank you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Ah yes...that makes sense. Bring up things that are not related to moral absolutes.

That's the point.

This time in the past when we "used to have absolute truths" had its own share of dodgy morals, things that would be considered abhorrent by today's set of "absolute truths".

I'm not challenging the concept of absolute truth, I'm challenging that you ascribe them to a particular time and place.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. Like "colored only".

That was bizarre.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That was bizarre.

So, I'm getting the impression I didn't make my point very well. Wouldn't be the first time.

Did my next response clarify things at all?

[Kevin]

I was referring to your taking her quotes out of context to make some bizarre point that really had nothing to do with her post.

I don't think diddling little kids and racism can really be compared. I don't think back then even such things were absolute truths either. Obviously it wasn't. There was a civil war around the whole idea.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

We certainly used to have absolute truths, which were not necessarily tied to any religious belief or dogma. Sexual exploitation of children, for instance, is considered globally wrong in every country on this planet. Even in third world countries, where fathers sell their grade school daughters into prostitution, I doubt they'd tell you they thought it was morally right, but that they had no choice but to do it to feed the rest of their families.

But on that same note, you have an organization like NAMBLA which, while it has just about fallen off the face of the earth, certainly still exists, and there are certainly still people who vehemently want to believe that it's "okay" to have a sexual relationship with a child.

But what about fifty years from now? In the name of "progression" and "open-mindedness", will our society learn to accept such a moral atrocity? I wouldn't be so sure as to say "no" anymore. We've carefully trained ourselves to turn a blind eye to things that fifty or sixty years ago would have been considered flat-out inappropriate, wrong, or morally corrupt. Our society wants morals to be relative...that doesn't mean that they necessarily are.

Your post suffers from a lack of clarity. There's no question that some base form of "moral rights" exist throughout the world...eg. killing is discouraged, sexual acts with infants is considered "wrong." But what, exactly, consitutes a "child"? Today's society has placed pretty strict limitations on age concerning sexual acts. Then again, I'm only talking about westernized countries – your implication that cultures "all around the world" have some sort of similar moral code is just flat-out wrong.

For example, how is it that marriage at an extremely young age (one that we'd consider not only shocking, but illegal today) was quite acceptable in modern Western society only a short time ago? How is it that there exist cultures in which sexual acts with young people are not only alright, but encouraged? For example, a friend of mine just told me about a hunter-gatherer tribe in which the young boys grew big and strong by sucking the "warrior juice" out of the tribe's men. (No, I'm not kidding. I have already made a public pledge to refer to semen only as "warrior juice" from now on.) I mean, I'm not an anthropologist and already I've provided two examples that seem to contravene your claims.

Furthermore, your examples are the complete OPPOSITE to your hints that our society is somehow degenerating. There is no "degradation" concerning children and sexual acts from a legal point of view. In fact, children probably have the highest level of legal protection that they've ever enjoyed in human history right now, and that protection is becoming more and more inclusive; in 50 years, it might not be legal to physically discipline a child in the Western world.

How do these examples support your claim that we "used" to have absolute truths?! They don't, that's how.

To add to that, my point still stands: your claim that we "used" to have absolute truths is pointless, because those "absolute truths" included things which we now know to be completely wrong. It used to be an "absolute truth" that the black man was inferior to the white man. It used to be an "absolute truth" that the Indian was inferior to the white man (just ask Andrew Jackson). There are a million "absolute truths" that advances in science have debunked over the past couple thousand years.

In short, I feel that "truth" has become such an unpopular term because we now realize how wrong most of what we considered "truth" really was.

greg

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

We certainly used to have absolute truths, which were not necessarily tied to any religious belief or dogma.

But what about fifty years from now? In the name of "progression" and "open-mindedness", will our society learn to accept such a moral atrocity? I wouldn't be so sure as to say "no" anymore. We've carefully trained ourselves to turn a blind eye to things that fifty or sixty years ago would have been considered flat-out inappropriate, wrong, or morally corrupt.

Wow, bummer. So attractive, on the outside.

EDIT: Greg has a much more appropriate and thoughtful response.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

EDIT: Greg has a much more appropriate and thoughtful response.

Yep. Thanks Greg, for that island of insight and thoughtfulness.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Wow, bummer. So attractive, on the outside.

Bummer? I don't see what the bummer about having morals is. Unless you're intentions was just to bone her or something.

You guys act like she said something bad or horrible in what you quoted.

I guess because your absolute truth didn't fit in line with hers it's a "bummer"

I doubt she sees it as a loss.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe 

I never said that.

No, but your question makes no sense if we assume that people have always disagreed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I was referring to your taking her quotes out of context to make some bizarre point that really had nothing to do with her post.

I don't think diddling little kids and racism can really be compared. I don't think back then even such things were absolute truths either. Obviously it wasn't. There was a civil war around the whole idea.

Well, and I'm not saying this was the best route to follow, I wasn't really comparing them, which is why I stripped that part from what I quoted. The pedophile part was evidence for the overall point, and seeing as how I was sailing over that evidence to address the overall point anyways, there was no reason to quote it.

Very bad form on my part. Mea culpa.

A proper response would have been:

Firstly, I think the existence of NAMBLA makes a poor argument for our society having a different set of "absolute morals" WRT pedophilia. I know no one who doesn't hold the same set of absolute anti-pedophilia morals. I'm not saying these people don't exist, I can say that these people are such a small minority, claiming there are enough of them to say our society doesn't have an absolute morality on this is ridiculous. As StM mentioned, things are out of control the other way. The time will come when you get thrown in jail for smacking your kid on the bottom. In fact, the argument bears so little relationship to reality all that really remains is (at best) a veiled swipe at the First Amendment, which is the reason NAMBLA exists... I admit, this frosted my ass.

Secondly, I object stridently to this notion that the situation WRT absolute morals was better in the past. Slavery is an even better example than Jim Crow laws. Slavery is something which is abhorrent in our society now. Our society has an absolute set of morals for that now. As we see this as an absolute truth now, that her argument is predicated on how we "used to have absolute truths" seems all shot to hell.

So I think the OP was massively off-base from two directions.

As I have said, I don't have a problem with the notion of absolute truth, I only want someone to support it with good evidence.