Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes

2013-06-14T03:28:58Z

Jand:

Debate question: Why are there so few homosexual athletes, especially in the United States?

To me this seems to be a very strange phenomenon, since the [[homosexual agenda]] would have you believe that homosexuals are present everywhere. Yet in sports they seem to be lacking. I think there's a few reasons. First off, in sports, you have to be strong-willed to succeed, yet homosexuals were weak-willed enough to succumb to their temptations. Secondly, sports help reaffirm the young athletes with people of the same gender. Boys unconsciously observe how other boys act and model their behavior on this; the same with girls. This is one of the reasons Dr. [[James Dobson]] encourages parents to have their children play sports -- it helps discourage the gender dissociation which is one of the causes of homosexuality.<ref>''Bringing Up Boys'', Dr. James C. Dobson. Tyndale House Publishers, 2005.</ref> In that vein, it's not surprising that the majority of homosexuals in sports come from individual sports, such as [[tennis]], [[golf]], [[figure skating]] or [[diving]]. In team sports, the players have to be like-minded with the others to form an effective team, so if one of them is having distracting thoughts, the whole team suffers. The homosexuals become a liability for teamwork and either must adopt a straight lifestyle or leave the sport. This is why there are so few homosexual athletes. Opinions welcome. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I know professional athletes tend to not be gay, but I'm not sure the trend extends to amateur athletes. When I was in high school, nearly a third of our football team was openly gay. Maybe the drive needed to become a professional athlete is not common in many homosexuals, but because amateur sports require less drive, their weak will is successfully hidden? [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? I just want to place when you were in high school - recently, last decade, older? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:40, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: This was three years ago, in a school in southern California. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::: I figured you were young, because I would have never heard of such a figure in my day (and I'm not all that much older than you -- amazing what difference a decade makes!). A figure like this is what I was afraid of. Score one for the homosexual agenda. It seems the youth of southern California are in their hands. One third?!?! That figure is staggering -- it's more than even the homosexual mouthpieces would give themselves credit for (they generally think they're 10% of the population). It's shocking that our schools are becoming so overrun with immorality. I'm glad you seem to have made it out of there okay, TGeary, but I must confess this news saddens me greatly. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: It was really pretty sad. I am hopeful that the professional sports culture successfully resists such a trend in the coming years and decades. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 22:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe the sports world environment is more hostile to gay people? That would both discourage gay people from entering the sports world and make any gay people in the sports world less likely to be public about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:41, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:I hear that argument a lot, but I don't buy it. How is the sports world more hostileto gay people than the business world or the military? We wouldn't have [[Don't Ask Don't Tell]] if there weren't a sizeable minority of homosexuals in the military. But in sports no one's suggesting Don't Ask Just Play, simply because the homosexuals aren't there to demand it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:47, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::Foxtrot, did you participate in any sports in junior high or high school? I ask because I went out for several sports in the 1980's, and it seems hard for me to believe that someone who did would have to ask whether such an environment is (or at least was) hostile to gays. It was an ''absurdly'' hypermasculine environment and ''flagrantly'' hostile to homosexuality. All the athletes were 'motivated' with being called antigay slurs for any perceived deficit in performance. How many laps have you run with a coach calling you a bunch of XXXs? How many times have you been berated for not beating those XXX from the other school? How often have you XXXs had to do extra wind sprints? Hit harder, you XXX! Stop XXX XXX XXX and hustle! If you were the only Christian on a team of Muslims that constantly used anti-Christian slurs, how long would you stick with the sport? Would you openly declare yourself Christian and risk ostracism or physical abuse? Could you keep it up for the ten or more years needed to make it to the major leagues of your chosen sport? Especially when it's so easy for a coach to put someone else on the field when the scouts are in the stands?
::Maybe things are different in school sports now; I certainly hope so. Still, it would take years for changes in the entry-level sports culture to trickle up to the high-level sports culture - especially since changes have to come from coaches who came up in the traditional system.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:22, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::I played some tennis in high school, but never made it to varsity. I'll admit there were several jibes calling some guys pansies, etc. but no more than calling someone a weakling, klutz, idiot or any other number of insults from frustration. In a competitive environment, these jibes are motivation for the person with the flawed performance to improve himself. If he doesn't, then it is his failure. A high school team (and more so a professional team) wants the best players, so the ones which drag upon the team are the ones which get cut. I did, and while it was a disappointment that I wasn't a Pete Sampras, I learned to focus on my other gifts, like mathematics. I still play tennis as a hobby, by the way.
:::Back to the point: if a student receives these jibes, it's usually a reflection of his performance. If there was a star quarterback who was gay, the jibes wouldn't happen because he's excelled and met or exceeded expectations. However, this doesn't happen, because it seems that homosexuals generally do not seem to excel in sports. I doubt that once Martina Navratilova aced past her opponents on the court there were still insults being thrown about how her lesbianism effects her play.
:::The comparison to Christian/Muslim slurs is misguided. Those are insults about someone's beliefs, which have nothing to do with their performance on field, court, pool, etc. A homosexual might become attracted to his opponents or teammates, and that could have a profound effect on the game. In contrast, a Christian isn't going to throw the game because he wants to pray with one of his teammates (sorry for the inappropriate parallel that sets up). It's just a different ballpark. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:50, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::::You appear to have entirely missed my point. Why would ''anyone'' want to participate in an activity in which they were ''only'' referred to in demeaning and offensive terms - if indeed something about them was used as the ''default insult''? The point is not that athletes are berated for poor performance; it's that the berating almost always takes (took?) the form of antigay slurs. If nobody knows that you're gay, does that make it less insulting, or frightening? If you're the star player, is it less offensive because some ''other'' player gets the demeaning label? It may not be enough to say "oh, never mind what I called him, ''you're'' one of the ''good'' ones." The Christian/Muslim analogy is entirely appropriate: how many Christians would make it to major league sports if they had to run a ten year gauntlet of a very hostile Jihadist environment? Wouldn't the Jihadists wonder why Christians were such poor athletes, as evidenced by the lack of openly practicing Christians in professional sports?

::::As for whether a homosexual athlete might be attracted to a teammate or opponent - so? A straight athlete can hate a particular teammate or prefer a particular opponent; they can play favorites; athletes change teams and have divided loyalties; best friends have petty arguments; ballhogs are resented by others; teammates compete amongst themselves for playing time, etc. The interpersonal dynamics of team sports are highly complex and ever-changing. If a teammate hits on me, is that worse than if he assaults my sister? Or sabotages my equipment? Or gets MVP instead of me?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:56, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:Yet, military service requires the same things cited above (strong will, teamwork). [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 19:58, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::And when the military tried to throw them out because of their disruptions to morale (and worse), they had the PC left wing breathing down their backs. There have been no studies showing homosexuals make a stronger military unit, and with the PC stranglehold, it's doubtful any such studies would see the light of day. They're hiding the clear results, which only a few politicians are willing to mention and fight against for the strength of our military. Many homosexuals join the military not out of a strong will, but out of a fantasy of being near many men in close quarters and this mentality is not conducive to teamwork. BHarlan, for a simple comparison--imagine if a homosexual coworker expressed his interest in you. I'm sure that afterwards there would be an extremely awkward atmosphere at work. Now imagine if concentration on your work had your and others' lives depending on it. Is that the clarity and focus that makes for a good team?-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::You misunderstand me terribly. You claim there is a "sizeable [sic] minority of homosexuals in the military". If that is so, the mystery is why it is not so in sports when military service and team sports require some of the same virtues.
:::It seems your explanation of this is that the military is a job and has cramped quarters. Only the former applies to professional sports, I suppose. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:Hmm well consider the percentages, only a very small percentage of people are homosexual and out of that even less would even consider becoming a proffesional athelete. I just think that maybe a lot of atheletes are scared to come out about their sexuality because of the reasons that foxtrot quoted up above, because sport is seen as very gender oriented, they're intimidated into not breaking the mold. Just a thought. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::I am taking into account the proportions, but it still doesn't make sense. Sports are something they are exposed to from a young age, and are a clear option for a career path. You'd expect they'd be inclined to follow that path as much as they are inclined to be actors, or dentists, or lawyers. It's not like I'm questioning the paucity of homosexuals in some obscure field like ceramics engineering (though the gays supposedly like pottery...) -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:55, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::You have kind of a weird view of gay people. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that sports are really not a clear option for a career path for most people, and kids are made aware of that, just as being a famous actor or musician is known to be highly unlikely. Additionally, yes, it's very common to throw around gay slurs at other people (even the word "gay" has become slang for bad). It's become a way of questioning masculinity, which males are likely to react negatively to, which is the point of calling someone a name in the first place (getting someone to improve themselves is a pretty weak excuse for out-and-out insulting them). Being gay is obviously still not an accepted thing, as you've demonstrated, so if a star quarterback were gay, do you really think he wouldn't get flack for it? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 23:21, 3 November 2008 (EST)

There is an interesting series on espn.com about this.

http://espn.go.com/otl/world/timeline.html

[[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 15:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

This is a stupid discussion. It's because many athletes need endorsements, and pro athletes don't want to get kicked out of the sport. Look at Australian gold medalist Matthew Mitcham. Gold Medalsit, but no endorsements. It's clearly homophobia in society. Also, the Canadian Forces has lots of gays, including me. And there's no problem with unit cohesion. Conservapedia makes God cry. --[[User:Hitchens|Hitchens]] 19:10, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
:Great answer. There aren't 'few' homosexual atheletes, they're just afraid of the bigotry they'd face. [[User:TimR|TimR]] 23:14, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
By bigotry you must mean defending young children from mongering menacing freaks. What is this? Why would America endorse an Australia Athelete in the first place? THis prospect is insulting to Human Intellegence, which is created by [[God]]. You need strong Biblical education, both of you. It is somewhat humurous for Hitchens to reference God crying over an website, The [[Fool]] says in his heart there is no God. You both match the Biblical definition of fools, consult a Bible to prove my point, THanks!
Veritas vos Liberabit. ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 21:28, 26 September 2009 (EDT))

The reason there are no homosexual atheletes is quite simple. Playing sports requires [[Machismo]] which homosuxuals lack, much like Richard Dawkins. If you wan't to see homosexuals in sports watch soccer, where I am sure there is an abundance. I'm 90% certain Richard Dawkins played soccer in high school--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 21:50, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
:Those individuals lacking machismo usually are metrosexual. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:00, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

metrosexuals are unfortunate victims of the homosexual agenda. they help glorify it and try and make it acceptable--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 23:09, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

For the moment let's ignore the debatable differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals and look at simply statistics. There are simply fewer people in the United States who identify as being gay or lesbian. Therefore, the already small amount of the population who play sports professionally (e.g. in the NFL, NBA etc...) will have very few people who think of themselves as homosexuals. And then if we consider the stigma that comes with being homosexual or bisexual then it becomes likely that anyone who was gay and active in professional sports would want to keep it hidden.

One question: The few gays I've met are quite effeminite, and they are shown in society as being like that (so presumably most are). Could it be that they are less interested in sports than heterosexual guys? And women participate in sport less than men do, so wouldn't effeminite men also participate less? (This is assuming that most gays in sport are openly gay, which I think is unlikely.) - JamesCA

Are there so few homosexual athletes, or so few OPENLY homosexual athletes? Charles Barkley recently said he played with multiple gay athletes during his career. But there has only been one openly gay NBA player in history and that was John Amaechi. And Barkely never played with Amaechi. So in all likelihood some of Barkely's teammates came out to the team but not to the public, and thus we wouldn't know about it. Plus there may have been (almost certainly were) others who we don't know about nor did their teammates. As for why a lower percentage of homosexual athletes are openly so than the general public, most likely it is because sports is a profession associated with being "manly" which is a trait we commonly assume homosexuals do not possess. Which means an openly gay athlete would be seen as "unmanly" (whether this is true or not is irrelevant) if he came out publicly, and it could potentially end his playing career. In fact, if I recall correctly, the first athlete who was openly gay during his playing career didn't happen until a few years ago when a Welsh rugby player came out. (And let me tell you, rugby players are among the most manly of all athletes). And of course, there was the transgender woman (who identified as a man but was biologically a woman and thus played with them) on the George Washington U basketball team this past year but (s)he left after the season. And there's a lot of negative sterotyping in women's basketball where people assume that successful female athletes ARE homosexual, rather than in men's sports where we assume the opposite. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:29, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
: It is true there are not al lot of homosexual male athletes. especially nit in team sports. However there are some exeptions like soccerplayer David Testo. As metioned above there are much more individuel athletes. Swimmer Johan Kenkhuis (silver Olympic medal), Mark Tewksbury (golden medal), Uriël Taken, Jeffrey Wammes. [[User:Cyclofile|Cyclofile]] 14:05, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
Well, homosexuals are more likely to be atheists and atheists are more likely to be fat, as explained by the article on atheism on this site. Just go to the article on atheism and check, I think it's there. Anyway, if more gay people are atheists and more atheists are fat, then that could be a reason for it.
-[[User:Jand|Jand]]-
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sports]]

User:Jand

2013-06-14T03:23:59Z

Jand:

Hi. I am new to this website and I think I have some opinions I want to share. It's going to be nice sharing opinions with other like-minded people. There are a lot of liberals in my neighborhood so I find it nice to be in a place where I can talk freely without fear of being gunned down. I suppose I should expound upon my views so people can get acquainted with me. My hobbies include carpentry, sports and fishing and I go to church every Sunday. I am pro life and opposed to Obamacare. I find all the stifling of free speech by liberals to be annoying, kinda like the drone of cicadas blocking out any coherent words. I am for increased military spending, and I have been in the army for some time and believe it is important to defend ourselves.I am pro freedom, which means pro gun rights and free trade. I have been a conservative for some time now so I feel like there's not much left for me to learn, but it seems this site covers a vast range of topics that I was previously oblivious to. I hope that I can find some place in this website for me. Thanks.
-[[User:Jand|Jand]]-

User:Jand

2013-06-14T03:20:45Z

Jand: Created page with "Hi. I am new to this website and I think I have some opinions I want to share. It's going to be nice sharing opinions with other like-minded people. There are a lot of liberals i..."

Hi. I am new to this website and I think I have some opinions I want to share. It's going to be nice sharing opinions with other like-minded people. There are a lot of liberals in my neighborhood so I find it nice to be in a place where I can talk freely without fear of being gunned down. I suppose I should expound upon my views so people can get acquainted with me. My hobbies include carpentry, sports and fishing and I go to church every Sunday. I am pro life and opposed to Obamacare. I find all the stifling of free speech by liberals to be annoying, kinda like the drone of cicadas blocking out any coherent words. I am pro freedom, which means pro gun rights and free trade. I have been a conservative for some time now so I feel like there's not much left for me to learn, but it seems this site covers a vast range of topics that I was previously oblivious to. I hope that I can find some place in this website for me. Thanks.
-[[User:Jand|Jand]]-

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2013-06-14T03:10:25Z

Jand:

{{debate-philosophy}} 
There is no _objective_ truth; this is a _subjective_ truth I choose to believe. [[User:Lw2007|Luke]] 01:19, 17 December 2007

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think anyone really claims that there ''is'' no objective truth, just that there is no access to it; i.e., that there is no objective ''knowledge''. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 17 November 2007 (EST)

or it could be that "there is no objective truth" is a fact and not a truth. there is a difference between the two.

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::So is what you are saying true? Objectively speaking I mean. While I agree the debate is a waste of time it is made necessary by the legions of people who find it necessary to state as objective truth that there is no objective truth.

This has been considered already and often. Please see Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theory, or Alan Turing's Halting Problem. All formal axiomatic systems are incomplete, although each instance within the system may be provable.

For example ....

"For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

Perhaps an easier way to think about it ....

"Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, asserts: "G cannot be proven true". If G were able to be proven true under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicts itself, and thus the theory would be inconsistent. But if G were not provable, then it would be true (for G expresses this very fact) and thus the theory would be incomplete."

All of this, at least in my mind, is not necessarily a waste of time -- self reference brings these formal logical systems (unfortunately or not) to their knees. The consequences of the debated question is where I think that we can find a more sublime and perhaps telling Truth. Reason has it's limits although I offer no evidence or explanation for what it cannot explain or those things of which it cannot make "sense". I do however, have my own ideas :) bumble70

:This is an abuse of Godel's theorem, which certainly does not prove that ''all'' consistent formal axiomatic systems are incomplete. It proves that all consistent axiomatic systems of arithmetic that include the traditional operations of addition and multiplication are incomplete, but plenty of axiomatic systems ''are'' complete--for example, systems with only addition. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 17 November 2007 (EST)

While I believe in objective truth (I'm a social constructivist), the attack on post modernity/post-structuralism presented in the title is decidely weak. First, to claim that any descriptive statement (i.e. 'there is no objective truth') need be an objective truth to be meaningfull is to misunderstand what is ment by objectivity (in the context of post modern theory). The Post Modernist claim that there can be no objective truth is only referencing normative claims. (claims about how things should be.) They are not saying that there cannot be objectively true descriptive claims (i.e. claims that have no prescriptive content, i.e. 'you are 6 feet tall.') They would say that yes, you might be 6 feet tall, but whether that is good, bad, or otherwise is purely subjective.

therefore a postmodernist can coherently say "the statement there is no objective [normative] truth is objectively true," precisely because that statement is descriptive and not normative.

(It should be noted that post modernists might very well have an epistemological objection to knowing any descriptive truth- NOT because those truths don't exist, but because we are incapable of knowing them, for a variety of reasons. However this is an epistemological objection, and not relevant to the ontological question of whether or not objective [normative] truth exists as such.) ~Essariel 5-28-07

If objective truth did not exist than immediately following the most recent campus murdering spree in VA Tech, there would have been myriad pundits asking the question "Was this a bad thing to have occurred?" The fact that no one even considered that a question implicitly proves that there is in fact an objective truth and consequently an objective moral order. If you can't see that, you're really not trying to look.

Be careful with claims like that - I can think of at least one person who felt that massacre wasn't a bad thing, and although the vast majority of humanity may disagree with him, Cho clearly felt his actions were "good" enough under his own system of beliefs to carry them out. Objective truth is not a popularity contest.--[[User:Guybrush|Guybrush]] 1:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

"'We know that we know nothing,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- 'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- 'You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved."
:Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[[User:Cthx]]

:Rand is just mischaracterizing. She uses quote marks, but who is she quoting? A straw man... --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:55, 17 November 2007 (EST)

-Humans affect logic, so the struggle to attain a state of purer logic is as natural and as connected as the human reaction for recognizing ones own limitations. Namely that you wish to surpass them. Of course the claim is not an objective truth becuase everyone has different views, opinions, and beliefs. Although some scientific breakthroughs can be made at the same time and by different, unconnected people, the advancement can only point to a greater mystery to be solved. When a human makes a claim, it is never objective because the statements comes from a biased mind limited by perception and belief. There is no such thing as an un-biased mind. If there were, would it recognize itself as thus?- Christos

:The question is asked; Is the phrase, "there is no objective truth", an objective truth?
* No because understanding is subjective. You understand or I understand or Joe Smith understands and that is called "subjective". When we read, we understand. "Objective" means something exists above and beyond individual understanding. Indeed, "Objective" means something exists even if no one at all, ever, understands at all. Since it is a written statement, when it is read, it is read by an individual who (probably) understands it. Therefore the statement is not an objective truth because it requires the statement be subjectively understood before it can be answered. [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 01:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think this is a stupid debate topic! -Racecarlock

If I think I exist would'nt I have to in fact exist because to think must imply existance. How can you think if you dont exist? So the fact that I think I exist leads to actual existance means that my existance is an objective truth. I in fact do exist. Not to infer that you must think to exist, but thinking must imply existance. So existance is an objective truth. So the statment is inherently wrong. There are objective truths. The problem is that humans are 100% objective. The thought of existing is an subjective truth in itself but has to lead to the objective truth that existance exists. -Lurkspotter

------------ On Absolutes
This is the same thing as stating - "There is NO such thing as absolutism." Which is an absolute statement. This is called a self-refuting argument. You can say it but it is irrational, illogical, and childish. Then the only statement that holds up is to say that "There are absolutes." -- Because that is an absolute statement and it is in agreement with itself. Then the argument become where are they? Who writes them? This leads to the fact there must be universal absolutes because without them nothing can be viewed as right and nothing can be viewed as wrong. We all have inscribed into us an absolute law, so when we break it, we know. We hid the fact we broke this absolute and flee when none pursue. When others break it we get angry for them having done so, because we know - that THEY KNEW, they were breaking it when they harmed us or our property.

You see when others harm us we are angry because we know there is an absolute univeral code - that states they should not. If you do not believe in that code - then I would call you a liar - because if I stole all your stuff and cut off your arms and you were upset at all about it - you do believe that I should not have done it. Atheists especially have a hard time with this behavioral inconsistency. They CLAIM that there is no universal code - but are wounded when someone breaks that non-existent code of universal ethics. Therefore they should not be wounded or hurt when a fellow primate takes their stuff or their mate or BOTH. They ARE upset - that is the behavioral inconsistency. They do not believe as they profess. They are a contradiction.

To answer the initial debate question. You cannot state (without being an illogical person) there is NO objective truth. If you TRIED to do it you would be entering into a contradictory position that would be illogical. Therefore there IS objective truth. Game-set-match. -- Ted Griffith

I've heard it stated that the only objective moral is that there are no objective morals, which is not actually unsubstantial, given that there are an infinite number of possible perspectives, and there is no coherence in their agreement in the slightest.

--------- There is objective truth.
Yes, but notice something - it is singular, so another way of doing it could be asking this: Are all kinds of different kinds of truths all objective? Well, one way of answering that could be looking at the word objective. If it is taken to mean having reality independently of the mind, then the mind/soul/brain has to be considered subjectively as having reality dependently on the mind/soul/brain.

There is objective truth.

There is subjective truth.

It follows from this definition of objective that there must be subjective truth. With regards - Mikael Birket Brilner

== Yes and No ==

Isn't it obvious that this question is simply a paradox regarding the objective/subjective?

Truth: "The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality"

Objective: "Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

Paradox: "An argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises " - Merriam Webster

So our initial premise indicates that there is no objective truth. For the follow up question, on one hand, we can assert that "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, but this obviously violates our initial premise. If we interpret "there is no objective truth" as a subjective truth, on the other hand, it means that there can be an objective truth from (a) certain perspective(s), which would also violate our initial premise. I would contest that this is a pointless question simply because it is inherently paradoxical. If we intend to have a serious and intelligent debate on objectivity and/or subjectivity, why not just replace this debate topic with any of the much simpler, non-paradoxical alternatives: "Is truth objective or subjective?", "Is reality grounded in subjectivity?", "Is every truth universally true?", etc.? --[[User:JesseA|JesseA]] 00:09, 4 November 2012 (EDT)
I think this just goes to show how sound moral absolutism is. I get my morality from the Bible. That is the inherent contradiction hidden within moral relevism. The truth is the truth and that is that. I just see all this philosopy as something to make us think more about God, not some thing where any person can question the fabric of the universe. Wouldn't it be nice if we all just shut the door on this and lived our lives normally? What practical purpose does this all serve anyway? Does it bring us closer to god? No. Being close to god is the very definition of intelligence and these questions serve as a distraction from that. I never bothered to learn all this and I am a happy, functional Christian. I think philosophy should be more like a theological debate. God decides the truth and the truth is the truth. That's it. Finished. Done.
-[[User:Jand|Jand]]-