by slimboyfat 175 Replies latest social entertainment
whether something is true or not depends who is looking at it and from what perspective
Nope.
From our modern perspective the earth is round. From the perspective of some ancients it was flat. From the perspective of prospective humans 500 years from now, who knows? Each has their reasons.
Slimboy are you sitting there having a good chuckle or do you actually stand by this relativistic drivel?
Believe it? It's self-evidently true. At least from my perspective. Have you got a better argument than simply repeating, "I can't believe you really think..." ad infinitum?
Have you got a better argument . .
A road traffic accident results in the death of one of the drivers. It is witnessed by the other driver and four pedestrians. Each of these five witnesses give differing accounts of what happened. Yes, their perspectives varied and in the case of the surviving driver there might even be a motivation to lie.
All that being said, none of these five witnesses have affected what the truth is as a result of their perspectives. The truth is what it is and the investigators may or may not discover it.
Or do you suppose that if the five witnesses agreed that nobody died in that accident that that really would be the truth?
Or do you suppose that if the five witnesses agreed that nobody died in that accident that that really would be the truth?
Well that depends on what we mean by five. Did you know there is a lost tribe in the Amazon that have no thumbs? They have no concept of numbers above 4
Did anybody really die? What is death really? Can we answer that objectively or is just our perspective of what it means to no longer be "alive" - whatever that means.
Was it an accident? Could it all be put down to happenstance or was there an element of agency?
What is truth?
[ / parody]
What is truth?
I'll let you know when I find it. I promise. LOL
nicolou what would a truthful account look like?
There is what happened and there attempts to describe it. Those two things will never match 100% because it's not in the nature of language to exactly mirror reality. Every category you can think of for such a situation is a human construct to try and interpret reality, they do not correspond directly to reality itself. Struck, drunk, speeding, careless, incapacitated, heart attack, distracted, mechanical failure, prescription glasses, hurry, depressed, grieving, novice, young, old, blind summit, junction, rush hour, zone, late, early, gear, fog, mist, windscreen, hand, wringing, council, forest, trees.
I have a personal experience something. I witnessed the attempted bombing of Glasgow airport in 2007. I haven't said this before, but I actually think I was the closest person to the vehicle when it struck, about 5 metres away or so from me. I was next to the lamppost in the picture. If there was anyone closer than me then I didn't see them. I read the account of what happened on Wikipedia and I just don't recognise it.
"A dark green Jeep Cherokee, registration number L808 RDT,[15] travelling at a speed estimated by a witness as about 30 mph[16] (48 km/h), struck security bollards in a terror ramming attack at the main entrance to Glasgow International Airport.[2] The vehicle was reported to have several petrol containers and propane gas canisters on board. One eyewitness said flames issued from beneath the car when it hit the building, while another eyewitness said it appeared the driver was trying to drive through the terminal doors. According to reports, the car was occupied by two "Asian-looking" men.[17] Police indicated the vehicle burst into flames when it was driven at the terminal.[18] An eyewitness noted that a man got out of the car and began to fight with police.[19]"
In my opinion the jeep was creeping along, no more than 10 miles an hour, and struck the bollards gently. The jeep was not on fire initially. People thought it was a strange accident to start with, and one old man approached to help. The driver kept trying to drive the vehicle into the building! But it was somehow stuck to the spot by the bollard or by something else. It would not budge. When the bollards prevented the vehicle entering the building the driver revved up the engine in frustration and the back wheels spun really fast. It was the friction from the wheels that started the fire. It was only at that point that any flames appeared at all. Only small flames from the tyres at first. Then the passenger got out and went to the back of the vehicle. People around me then started to realise what was going on and started to run away. I ran into the building at the point to find my wife so I don't know what happened after that at the jeep. Except that when I left the building a minute later through a different exit almost everyone was gone the jeep was on fire big time.
So who has the truth of what happened there, me or the Wikipedia witnesses? Mmm you tell me nicolou. I'd like to know. In a radical sense I don't think either. In a more mundane sense I trust my own recollection more that the reported witness of others. But probably foolishly.
Fascinating account Slimboy, thanks for sharing it.
So who has the truth of what happened there, me or the Wikipedia witnesses? Mmm you tell me nicolou. I'd like to know.
I can't answer that. All I have to go on are the news reports and now the testimony of an anonymous poster on JWN whom I am desperately hoping isn't playing some silly game.
The reality of what happened at Glasgow airport may never be accounted for with 100% certainty but how does that prove your opening sentence to be true - the one I took issue with remember?
You claimed nothing can be known with certainty and I called you out on falling into the trap of claiming 'all' instead of 'some'. You know very well that plenty of things can be known with certainty.
What's going on Slim'?
Like what?
Like decapitation of humans always results in death for the victim?
You've still not given a % of how sure you are about this ...
95%
Unless they've mastered head transplants already and it's not hit the news yet.
