Notchet.com :: Funny Videos,Free Online Games,Funny Pictures,Hot Girls,Bands

Fyi, inmendham blocked me

Uploaded by: pyrrho314
Video Description:
"objective" people don't handle objective facts too well in my experience.
----
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Tags for this video: atheism nature objectivity philosophy physics reality relativistic skepticism subjectivity

Find more videos in the "Nonprofit" category
See more videos uploaded by pyrrho314

Related Videos

I let inmendham use my channel	Somewhat Angry "Reply" to Inmendham	Blocked

Re: Intellectual retards and Retarded intellectuals	Homosexuality is right cause god says its wrong!	Re: Matt and Pyrrho

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

if you were blocked ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

if you were blocked you couldn't have posted that comment.

eh ?, the comment ... ( 10 months ago by Bazeado)

eh ?, the comment below ? No, not you... Inmendbo blocked me.
You messing with my subjectivity dude :p

if you see the ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

if you see the threaded comments you'll see I responded to anarticulatetroll, you I understood... cheers.

It was supposed to ... ( 10 months ago by AnArticulateTroll)

It was supposed to be a reply to Victor's comment lol dunno what happened
Well I'm not gonna leave the same comment twice. I can still contact him on his other channels.
Anyway, inmendham is trigger-happy with the block button. YouTube means alot to him.

opps, my browser ... ( 10 months ago by Bazeado)

opps, my browser has a little trouble in threading the comments in any kind of intelligible manner.
No worries.
Have fun.

"we say things ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

"we say things exist objectively"... that's not a definition of "objective" is it?
two, I believe in the physical world, I believe in physics. If you think my version of "objectivism" doesn't apply to people, look around, it does. I'm not arguing against any definition of objectivism that acknowledges skepticism and relativism, which physics DOES.
to continue, I think you should define "objectivism" as you see it.

basically... ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

basically... physicalism, or materialism of any type, does not require an "objective" view of nature according to the definitions of objective that I know. If you are going to say that objectivism is any kind of materialism, then you are reworking the definition and I'm fine with that. That's why I ask your definition and add the question, "why not just call it materialism?"

ah, that explains ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

ah, that explains it, cheers.

What browser is ... ( 10 months ago by AnArticulateTroll)

What browser is that? I'm using Internet Explorer.

who is victor? ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

who is victor?

Gimmeabreakman. He ... ( 10 months ago by AnArticulateTroll)

Gimmeabreakman. He said he's gonna unblock everybody on the first of the month.

""we say things ... ( 10 months ago by wonderist)

""we say things exist objectively"... that's not a definition of "objective" is it?"
No, it's a definition of objectivism, in reply to your unsubstantiated claim that objectivism is saying that things exists *absolutely*. I already told you several times that the definition of objective in this context is that things exist independent of the perception of them, i.e. there is a common shared reality. You want to conflate that with absolutism. That's your hang up, not mine.

"If you are going ... ( 10 months ago by wonderist)

"If you are going to say that objectivism is any kind of materialism"
I am not, and did not say this. You asked for a version of objectivism that "presents a relativistic, non-absolute, epistemology in which things are actually dispersed waves of probability, and calls it "objective"", and I gave it to you, namely physicalism. Physicalism happens to be a form of objectivism. That's hardly the same as claiming objectivism is 'any kind of materialism'. Again, you are muddying the waters.

I am not hung up ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

I am not hung up about it. I have discussed this issue with many objectivists that mean exactly that by "objective". If this is just about the word, there is no disagreement to discuss, we agee reality is relativistic. But if you are saying most people mean that by "objective" I disagree.

That's not its ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

That's not its meaning in philosophy, that's not what people mean by it, they mean, more generally, a type of positivism. No matter what you believe about the physical world I think we are best off abandoning "objectivism", and approaching the problem with less assumption.
Do you deny even that some people mean this by "objective fact"?

Could you please ... ( 10 months ago by wonderist)

Could you please point to a proponent of objectivism who holds that objectivism means that reality can be known to 100% accuracy? I don't know of any.
Whether or not proponents of subjectivism hold this idea is irrelevant. It only shows they don't understand their opponent's views.

gary is one, wukdar ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

gary is one, wukdar was another saying we should have spine and call 99% sure 100%. Kant, the positivists, and more. I've just made a video about this. What is your problem with my point from this that I will negotiate with you what word we use, but the important thing is to accept relativity in your objective model, then call the result whatever you want. I have sought to debate people that deny relativism, and used the words that were the best fit.

I also the draw the ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

I also the draw the meaning from "objective frame of eference" which is an impossible and non-existant frame.
I put at the end of my video what I am willing to do to accomodate your complaint on this.

physicalism implies ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

physicalism implies unbiased perspectives are possible? we still lack your definition of "objective" in an epistemological sense.

inmendham also ... ( 10 months ago by angryislander56)

inmendham also thinks that subscribing to
someone is an endorsement.You can't just be
curious about the other side.
He is a control freak espousing a controlling
ideology.

Sad. Sadder that ... ( 10 months ago by cosabio)

Sad. Sadder that there are so many who try to use science that they don't understand to support ideas completely out of context.

what's sad about ... ( 10 months ago by pyrrho314)

what's sad about that... better that we not try?

No harm in trying. ... ( 10 months ago by cosabio)

No harm in trying. The harm is in misdoing. When people are misled and false conclusions become religious delusions. People are killed to protect lies. Much damage is done from my view. I guess if you have the attitude that it's all part of the play, then I guess it's ok? I tend to take theses things very seriously, i guess.

The Lord giveth and ... ( 10 months ago by thoradream)

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.