Someone said this or something similar once:

That's not what I said.

How is that?

What do abstractions have to do with biases sorry?
Why is that world ('reality') best for them.

Question for f316ae:
Why are you here if not to find the objective truth about society?

I think reality without abstraction is best because it gives one the power to shape their own destiny (or to prevent others from doing the same). Those who live above the abstraction can see the truth for themselves, and are thus in a position to keep others away from it. It's very simple to do this when you know most people are comfortable with ignorance and are only listening for the things they want to hear.

That's why I'm here. Sometimes I'm confronted with ideas that challenges my bias; when that happens, I prefer to be somewhere that will present to me something honest. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think that this place is the most honest. If the truth is to be found on a Cantonese salt mining forum, it would most likely be found here. But as pointed-out, human interpretations are error-prone.

That and there are a lot of fucking shills.

I meant true objectivity as in not being mind-relative. You clearly mean a shared subjectivity by the same word. Let's fix this by deciding to use 'objectivity' the former and 'intersubjectivity' for the latter. Agreed?

What is 'something honest'?
Why do you want to find someone else's 'truth' instead of making your own if it's really all relative?

lol, people still say this.

Thusly, I refute this old cliche…. pic related

The only objective truth is that that every other truth is subjective.

Fuck off, relativity fag.

Spangler in his book talked about how truth meant different things to different people.

What was true for the classical people is completely false for the modern member of the western european (and american) culture.

that's some shit tier mises epistomology

Most people need something to believe in. They aren't equipped to deal with doubt, without it sending them down the path of nihilism.

you just went full retard, shill.

Refute the argument, or silence your face.

Protip: you can't

I am not objectively saying that truth is subjective.

That would be contradictory of course, my point is that our perception are inherently corrupted and influenced by our subconscious and our senses.

What appears objective and true to you may not be true at all for me, due to our differing perspectives. There is no "objective" truth, as science has shown we can never trust our understanding of the world, society, culture, etc as objectively true as often we have missed something.

This epistemology is very much like the Marxist's dialectical materialism, and also echos aristotelian and platonic theories of forms.

FUCK
OFF
RELATIVIST
FAG

quit trying to erode the foundations of logic in order to make the goy more susceptible to deception, you fucking turd.

Damn shame none of that means a damn thing, isn't it?

You trying to jam as many 5 dollar words into a sentence in order to appear smart, while simultaneously stating that truth is a lie, and only lies are true?

That's what everyone thinks, but people perceive reality differently.

...

Sure you can. Religion's been doing it for thousands of years.

Gee, I wonder why.
Maybe because saying "this is the absolute truth" is more persuasive than "I might be wrong, other theories are correct too not only mine".
Sage.
OP confirmed shill /

Truely, you are the ruler of the land of idiots.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Not an argument.

That's subjective, dipshit.

No.

Are you saying that my statement was OBJECTIVELY not an argument?

I thought you said all truth was relative because perceptions and feels?

...

...

How do you know f316ae isn't different from 65599b?

yes, but what's the point in persuading that way? is what I'm trying to get at.

*In but not
Sorry for the confusion

So, shut it down, eh?

Damn…. that's just sad.