Binary

[Gary Childress]

Who suggested this? Besides you?

OK. so binary thinking is healthy?

It's ONE WAY of thinking. It has obvious limitations. Whether it's healthy or not depends on what you do with it, right?

Am I doing something unhealthy with it?

[Lacewing]

OK. so binary thinking is healthy?

It's ONE WAY of thinking. It has obvious limitations. Whether it's healthy or not depends on what you do with it, right?

Am I doing something unhealthy with it?

I don't know. You simply seem to not be hearing what's actually being said, while interjecting your own distortions. We humans do that all the time to fit our binary models.

[Gary Childress]

It's ONE WAY of thinking. It has obvious limitations. Whether it's healthy or not depends on what you do with it, right?

Am I doing something unhealthy with it?

I don't know. You simply seem to not be hearing what's actually being said, while interjecting your own distortions. We humans do that all the time to fit our binary models.

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Lacewing]

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

If you're okay with not considering what else is possible beyond a binary view, great! But you seem to be frustrated a lot by the expectations you seem to have... yes? Answers must be yes or no, true or false, one thing or the other. I'm suggesting that your expectations seem to be based on binary thinking, which can't answer (and isn't truly applicable for) everything. Maybe it works for simple questions... but not for more complex concepts, which might involve many considerations. That's understandable, right? I think much of our world involves many considerations... and I have no problem (like you) saying 'I don't know'. I think that's better than simply picking a binary answer so we can say we know.

[Age]

Am I doing something unhealthy with it?

I don't know. You simply seem to not be hearing what's actually being said, while interjecting your own distortions. We humans do that all the time to fit our binary models.

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

PICKING "sides" ARE MORE THAN just 'problematic'.

AND then ARGUING and/or FIGHTING FOR the CHOSEN "side" IS WHY 'you', human beings, ARE NOT YET living IN Peace AND Harmony, like 'we' ARE.

"gary childress" there ARE NO ACTUAL "sides" IN 'Life', OF COURSE OTHER than 'those ones' that 'you', human beings, have MADE UP and DEVISED.

[Age]

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

If you're okay with not considering what else is possible beyond a binary view, great! But you seem to be frustrated a lot by the expectations you seem to have... yes? Answers must be yes or no, true or false, one thing or the other. I'm suggesting that your expectations seem to be based on binary thinking, which can't answer (and isn't truly applicable for) everything. Maybe it works for simple questions... but not for more complex concepts, which might involve many considerations. That's understandable, right? I think much of our world involves many considerations...

EXCEPT there can be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION to the IDEA that JUST MAYBE there IS ACTUALLY One Truth, which 'we' ALL DO ACTUALLY AGREE UPON and ACCEPT.

BECAUSE to even just THINK such a 'thing' would be SO WRONG and OUTLANDISH hey "lacewing"?

and I have no problem (like you) saying 'I don't know'. I think that's better than simply picking a binary answer so we can say we know.

If, and WHEN, the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED throughout this forum are LOOKED BACK OVER what WILL BE FOUND is that THE RESPONSE, and ANSWER, 'I don't know', FROM 'you', 'respondents, so far HAS BEEN if NOT ZERO ONLY been once or twice.

[Gary Childress]

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

If you're okay with not considering what else is possible beyond a binary view, great! But you seem to be frustrated a lot by the expectations you seem to have... yes? Answers must be yes or no, true or false, one thing or the other. I'm suggesting that your expectations seem to be based on binary thinking, which can't answer (and isn't truly applicable for) everything. Maybe it works for simple questions... but not for more complex concepts, which might involve many considerations. That's understandable, right? I think much of our world involves many considerations... and I have no problem (like you) saying 'I don't know'. I think that's better than simply picking a binary answer so we can say we know.

Well, take my question in the "General" Topics forum. I asked, "is cannibalism immoral"? I gave the answer, "yes". On something like that, a person can reply, "maybe" but I think that would be kind of avoiding the question. I mean, what would "maybe" (for example) mean under those circumstances? It could mean, "I don't know if there is such a thing as objective morality" or it could mean, "I say 'maybe' because I might want to engage in cannibalism under certain circumstances". So give those answers instead of saying that "binary thinking" is causing a problem. People are free to explain themselves. I'm curious where people stand on things like that. When I look at world news around me and things some of my own fellow citizens do, I'm not sure that I can take it for granted what people think.

And then there's Age, who spends a significant amount of his time saying he's got "thee truth" and exclaims no one can figure out what "thee truth" is and then states that he's stated it countless times to us "back in the days when this was written". That I don't understand. I've asked him a couple of times what is "thee truth" and I don't recall getting a straight answer from him. I mean, is there even such a thing as "thee truth"? As in, "thee truth" is that he would like a cheese danish right now?

[Gary Childress]

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

If you're okay with not considering what else is possible beyond a binary view, great! But you seem to be frustrated a lot by the expectations you seem to have... yes? Answers must be yes or no, true or false, one thing or the other. I'm suggesting that your expectations seem to be based on binary thinking, which can't answer (and isn't truly applicable for) everything. Maybe it works for simple questions... but not for more complex concepts, which might involve many considerations. That's understandable, right? I think much of our world involves many considerations...

EXCEPT there can be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION to the IDEA that JUST MAYBE there IS ACTUALLY One Truth, which 'we' ALL DO ACTUALLY AGREE UPON and ACCEPT.

BECAUSE to even just THINK such a 'thing' would be SO WRONG and OUTLANDISH hey "lacewing"?

and I have no problem (like you) saying 'I don't know'. I think that's better than simply picking a binary answer so we can say we know.

If, and WHEN, the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED throughout this forum are LOOKED BACK OVER what WILL BE FOUND is that THE RESPONSE, and ANSWER, 'I don't know', FROM 'you', 'respondents, so far HAS BEEN if NOT ZERO ONLY been once or twice.

If people ask me a specific question that I don't know the answer to, then I'll usually say "I don't know" if I don't know the answer. I think I've even said "I don't know" to you on a few occasions. In fact, I'll have to look but I think you asked me something in the conversation regarding the Wiki article on cannibalism in China and I responded exactly with "I don't know." I recall asking a question of you in return and I think I was told I didn't understand something. I can go search for the post if you want.

[Age]

If you're okay with not considering what else is possible beyond a binary view, great! But you seem to be frustrated a lot by the expectations you seem to have... yes? Answers must be yes or no, true or false, one thing or the other. I'm suggesting that your expectations seem to be based on binary thinking, which can't answer (and isn't truly applicable for) everything. Maybe it works for simple questions... but not for more complex concepts, which might involve many considerations. That's understandable, right? I think much of our world involves many considerations...

EXCEPT there can be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION to the IDEA that JUST MAYBE there IS ACTUALLY One Truth, which 'we' ALL DO ACTUALLY AGREE UPON and ACCEPT.

BECAUSE to even just THINK such a 'thing' would be SO WRONG and OUTLANDISH hey "lacewing"?

and I have no problem (like you) saying 'I don't know'. I think that's better than simply picking a binary answer so we can say we know.

If, and WHEN, the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED throughout this forum are LOOKED BACK OVER what WILL BE FOUND is that THE RESPONSE, and ANSWER, 'I don't know', FROM 'you', 'respondents, so far HAS BEEN if NOT ZERO ONLY been once or twice.

If people ask me a specific question that I don't know the answer to, then I'll usually say "I don't know" if I don't know the answer.

WHY ONLY 'usually'? WHY NOT ALL OF THE TIME.

Also, have you EVER replied WITH, 'I don't know', TO ANY OF MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS that I have posed, and ASKED TO 'you'?

I think I've even said "I don't know" to you on a few occasions.

Okay, great. BUT, 'thinking' IS NOT 'knowing', right?

In fact, I'll have to look but I think you asked me something in the conversation regarding the Wiki article on cannibalism in China and I responded exactly with "I don't know."

That would be GREAT. And, if I recall correctly, I replied TO 'you' WITH, 'I do NOT know', regarding some QUESTION 'you' ASKED 'me'.

I recall asking a question of you in return and I think I was told I didn't understand something.

I recall the SAME 'thing'.

I can go search for the post if you want.

But WHY would 'you' even ASSUME I would WANT 'this' now?

[Age]

I can be "non-binary" when something isn't all that important to me. However, with the sort of news I'm getting off the Internet these days, it's difficult to remain "non-binary" on some things. I'd like to see some "yes/no" or "true/false" answers to what seem like important questions to me. If I don't get them, then I don't get them. Other than that I don't see what my 'problem' is. Or, at least, I don't see why my moments of binary thinking are problematic.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

If you're okay with not considering what else is possible beyond a binary view, great! But you seem to be frustrated a lot by the expectations you seem to have... yes? Answers must be yes or no, true or false, one thing or the other. I'm suggesting that your expectations seem to be based on binary thinking, which can't answer (and isn't truly applicable for) everything. Maybe it works for simple questions... but not for more complex concepts, which might involve many considerations. That's understandable, right? I think much of our world involves many considerations... and I have no problem (like you) saying 'I don't know'. I think that's better than simply picking a binary answer so we can say we know.

Well, take my question in the "General" Topics forum. I asked, "is cannibalism immoral"? I gave the answer, "yes".

Asking, 'Is cannibalism immoral?', is like asking, 'Is cutting legs off of children's bodies immoral?'

There is NO definitively Right NOR Wrong ANSWER here.

ONLY WHEN 'the definitions' of the words being USED ARE AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, and then ONLY WHEN ALL OF THE 'variables', 'circumstances', or 'different scenarios', (which ARE COUNTLESS), are LOOKED AT and DELVED INTO, THEN, and ONLY THEN, the True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct ANSWER can be GIVEN.

It is NOT like you are ASKING, 'Is abuse immoral?', which, OBVIOUSLY, IS AN IRREFUTABLE 'Yes'. And, which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one could, logically, DISAGREE WITH.

On something like that, a person can reply, "maybe" but I think that would be kind of avoiding the question. I mean, what would "maybe" (for example) mean under those circumstances? It could mean, "I don't know if there is such a thing as objective morality" or it could mean, "I say 'maybe' because I might want to engage in cannibalism under certain circumstances". So give those answers instead of saying that "binary thinking" is causing a problem. People are free to explain themselves.

People are ALSO absolutely FREE TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, INSTEAD OF just 'idling away' AND WAITING FOR "others" TO 'explain themselves".

See, some like 'me' PURPOSELY do NOT 'explain things' FULLY, to just GAUGE who, and who is NOT, Truly INTERESTED here. I ALSO do 'this' FOR the PURPOSE OF SHOWING HOW what CAUSED the LACK OF SPEED IN PROGRESSING and MOVING TOWARDS 'world Peace' was the peoples 'of the past's' LACK OF CURIOSITY and INTEREST, and 'their' BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. Which 'you', respondents, here are REVEALING, and PROVING, SO True and SO WELL.

I'm curious where people stand on things like that.

LOL 'you' here ARE ONLY CURIOS ON one TINIEST and LITTLEST Truly INSIGNIFICANT 'thing'.

When I look at world news around me

LOL 'you' KEEP REFERRING TO 'world news' or 'the internet' here. Which IS Truly HILARIOUS to WATCH 'you' SAY and WRITE "gary childress", as the ACTUAL AMOUNT of so-called 'world news' and/or 'the internet' that 'you' ACTUALLY GET TO LOOK AT and SEE is ABSOLUTELY SO INSIGNIFICANT and SO "one-eyed", as some might say, that to RELY ON 'that' EXPLAINS and PROVES FULLY WHY 'you' ARE SO CLOSED, NARROWED, ONE "sided", BLIND, and DEAF here.

BESIDES the Fact that the majority of 'the news', and the 'news channels', in THAT one country 'you' live in and refer to, for 'information', on its own has NOT BEEN BAD ENOUGH for decades 'now', when this is being written, ONLY LOOKED AT 'the world' as though 'that country' was AT THE CENTER OF 'the world', and REALLY 'it' was the ONLY IMPORTANT 'one', ON earth, 'the news' and the 'news channels' in that country have GOTTEN SO FAR "one-sided", themselves that instead of 'us' VERSE 'them'/rest of world scenario, the people in that one country have caused such A SEPARATION, and are continually causing MORE of A SEPARATION, that to even CONSIDER that one news channel OVER another is MORE TRUE or MORE RIGHT would just be an UNTHINKABLE 'thing' to do.

'you', people, have BECOME SO "one-sided", FROM A VERY BIASED so-called 'news' system, that even COMPUTERS and MACHINE ALGORITHMS, laughingly, KNOW which "SIDE" of 'the story' to SEND TO 'you', ON THE INTERNET.

That 'you' HAD BECOME SO BLINDED BEFORE, WHEN you could CHOOSE WHICH 'channel' to WATCH or NOT, 'you' ARE FREQUENTLY BECOMING MORE BLINDED by the fact that 'you' ARE GETTING FED "one-sided" INFORMATION, CONTINUOUSLY, 'now'. Thus, 'the stories', or PROPAGANDA, which 'you' ARE 'now' SEEING, READING, and RECEIVING IS 'seemingly' FITTING IN, PERFECTLY, WITH what 'you' WERE currently BELIEVING and/or ASSUMING TRUE, ANYWAY.

AND, IN SOME countries 'this' IS HAPPENS A LOT WORSE than IN OTHER countries. SOME people, in countries like the so-called "united states of america" are have been SO INDOCTRINATED that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE "china" WILL START A WAR, or INVADE OTHER countries, YET WHEN was the LAST TIME "china" started a war and/or invaded another country? AND, how MANY have 'they' started, or how MANY countries have 'they' invaded, compared to "the united states of america".

There is SO MUCH PROPAGANDA UPON the people living in "the united states of america" that a LOT of those people have become SO INDOCTRINATED that 'they' ACTUALLY BELIEVE fighting, warring, weapons, and killing is an ACTUAL NECESSARY PART of 'Life', and living. And because they have BECOME SO BLIND-SIDED 'they' ACTUALLY BELIEVE "others" LOOK and SEE the SAME WAY as 'this'. Some have become SO SCARED FROM SO MUCH INDOCTRINATION that 'they' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that "others" ARE OUT, TO GET 'them'.

Which, AGAIN, IS A Truly HILARIOUS 'thing' TO WATCH, and OBSERVE.

and things some of my own fellow citizens do, I'm not sure that I can take it for granted what people think.

Okay.

And then there's Age, who spends a significant amount of his time saying he's got "thee truth" and exclaims no one can figure out what "thee truth" is

LOL
LOL
LOL

I have NEVER SAID, NOR EXCLAIMED, that NO one can figure out what 'thee Truth IS'.

In Fact I HAVE SAID, and EXCLAIMED, the EXACT OPPOSITE.

But, BECAUSE 'you' have BECOME SO BLINDED, 'you' GET SO FOOLED by 'your' OWN BELIEFS, ASSUMPTIONS, and DISTORTIONS.

I have, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, EXCLAIMED HOW WHEN 'you', people, ALSO LEARN and GAIN the KNOW-HOW of HOW to FIND, SEE, and RECOGNIZE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, THEN, and ONLY THEN, ALL OF 'you' CAN, and WILL, DO 'this' AS WELL.

BUT, as I KEEP POINTING OUT, and 'you', people, KEEP SHOWING, 'you' ARE NOT Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING and OBTAINING 'this ABILITY'. As 'you' MUCH PREFER TO EXPRESS 'your' OWN current VIEWS and BELIEFS as though 'they' ARE the TRUE and RIGHT ones, while CONTINUALLY FIGHTING FOR 'those VIEWS and BELIEFS, INSTEAD.

and then states that he's stated it countless times to us "back in the days when this was written".

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISCONSTRUED, TWISTED, and DISTORTED what I have ACTUALLY EVER SAID, and MEANT.

But, AGAIN, 'this' is BECAUSE 'you' MUCH PREFER TO LOOK AT and SEEING 'things'/the world FROM the 'thinking' WITHIN 'that body' INSTEAD OF WANTING TO SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION and UNDERSTANDING OF and FROM ANOTHER VIEWPOINT.

That I don't understand. I've asked him a couple of times what is "thee truth" and I don't recall getting a straight answer from him.

LOL here is THE PRIMEST OF examples OF NOT BEING ABLE TO READ, NOR SEE, the ACTUAL WORDS IN FRONT OF 'them'.

When you have ASKED 'me', 'What is the truth, Age?' I have, REPEATEDLY, ASKED 'you', 'In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?'

THEN, 'you' do NOT RESPOND.

But 'now' are 'TRYING' SO HARD and SO DESPERATELY as though I am NOT giving 'you' a so-called 'straight answer'.

I mean, is there even such a thing as "thee truth"?

YES.

Was that A 'STRAIGHT' ENOUGH ANSWER FOR 'you', "gary childress"?

So, BEFORE 'you' EVER 'try to' CLAIM AGAIN that I do NOT PROVIDE 'you' WITH STRAIGHT or CLEAR ANSWERS, REMEMBER 'this one'.

Now that I HAVE GIVEN THIS ANSWER TO 'you', what are 'you' GOING TO DO WITH 'it'?

Are 'you' just going to, AGAIN, IGNORE 'it', and DEFLECT? Or, would you like to DELVE INTO and INQUIRE INTO 'it' FURTHER?

As in, "thee truth" is that he would like a cheese danish right now?

What A Truly IDIOTIC, STUPID, and ADULTISH 'thing' TO SAY.

[Lacewing]

Well, take my question in the "General" Topics forum. I asked, "is cannibalism immoral"? I gave the answer, "yes". On something like that, a person can reply, "maybe" but I think that would be kind of avoiding the question. I mean, what would "maybe" (for example) mean under those circumstances? It could mean, "I don't know if there is such a thing as objective morality" or it could mean, "I say 'maybe' because I might want to engage in cannibalism under certain circumstances". So give those answers instead of saying that "binary thinking" is causing a problem. People are free to explain themselves. I'm curious where people stand on things like that.

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'. That's probably often my answer.

And then there's Age, who spends a significant amount of his time saying he's got "thee truth" and exclaims no one can figure out what "thee truth" is and then states that he's stated it countless times to us "back in the days when this was written". That I don't understand. I've asked him a couple of times what is "thee truth" and I don't recall getting a straight answer from him. I mean, is there even such a thing as "thee truth"? As in, "thee truth" is that he would like a cheese danish right now?

That's hilarious! It seems you have a great deal of clarity regarding that circumstance.

[commonsense]

EXCEPT there can be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION to the IDEA that JUST MAYBE there IS ACTUALLY One Truth, which 'we' ALL DO ACTUALLY AGREE UPON and ACCEPT.

Even when we agree, there may be no absolute truth, like back in the days when the Earth was thought to be flat.

[Age]

EXCEPT there can be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION to the IDEA that JUST MAYBE there IS ACTUALLY One Truth, which 'we' ALL DO ACTUALLY AGREE UPON and ACCEPT.

Even when we agree, there may be no absolute truth, like back in the days when the Earth was thought to be flat.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the ACTUAL POINT I was SHOWING, and POINTING OUT TO the one it was DIRECTED AT, but, anyway, IF, and WHEN, 'we' ALL AGREE, then what IS IN AGREEMENT IS the ABSOLUTE, ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Did ALL AGREE that the earth was flat?

The ANSWER to 'this QUESTION' IS OBVIOUS.

Now, how does 'it' FOLLOW FROM, 'Even when we agree', THAT THEN, 'there may be NO absolute truth'?

OBVIOUSLY, if SOME agree, then what they are agreeing with may NOT be the absolute Truth. But, just AS OBVIOUS, IS IF ALL ARE AGREEING ON and WITH some 'thing', then 'that thing' IS the ACTUAL ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth. 'This' can NOT be REFUTED.

So, WHY do people even bring up that COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT example, which you did here?

[commonsense]

EXCEPT there can be ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION to the IDEA that JUST MAYBE there IS ACTUALLY One Truth, which 'we' ALL DO ACTUALLY AGREE UPON and ACCEPT.

Even when we agree, there may be no absolute truth, like back in the days when the Earth was thought to be flat.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the ACTUAL POINT I was SHOWING, and POINTING OUT TO the one it was DIRECTED AT, but, anyway, IF, and WHEN, 'we' ALL AGREE, then what IS IN AGREEMENT IS the ABSOLUTE, ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Did ALL AGREE that the earth was flat?

The ANSWER to 'this QUESTION' IS OBVIOUS.

Now, how does 'it' FOLLOW FROM, 'Even when we agree', THAT THEN, 'there may be NO absolute truth'?

OBVIOUSLY, if SOME agree, then what they are agreeing with may NOT be the absolute Truth. But, just AS OBVIOUS, IS IF ALL ARE AGREEING ON and WITH some 'thing', then 'that thing' IS the ACTUAL ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth. 'This' can NOT be REFUTED.

So, WHY do people even bring up that COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT example, which you did here?

Because you have not yet clarified your main point, even if you think you have.

[Age]

Well, take my question in the "General" Topics forum. I asked, "is cannibalism immoral"? I gave the answer, "yes". On something like that, a person can reply, "maybe" but I think that would be kind of avoiding the question. I mean, what would "maybe" (for example) mean under those circumstances? It could mean, "I don't know if there is such a thing as objective morality" or it could mean, "I say 'maybe' because I might want to engage in cannibalism under certain circumstances". So give those answers instead of saying that "binary thinking" is causing a problem. People are free to explain themselves. I'm curious where people stand on things like that.

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'. That's probably often my answer.

And then there's Age, who spends a significant amount of his time saying he's got "thee truth" and exclaims no one can figure out what "thee truth" is and then states that he's stated it countless times to us "back in the days when this was written". That I don't understand. I've asked him a couple of times what is "thee truth" and I don't recall getting a straight answer from him. I mean, is there even such a thing as "thee truth"? As in, "thee truth" is that he would like a cheese danish right now?

That's hilarious! It seems you have a great deal of clarity regarding that circumstance.

LOL "gary childress" made AT LEAST FOUR Wrong AND False CLAIMS in that one paragraph, and here "lacewing" IS suggesting that "gary childress" has a GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY.

Which IS ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and AT PLAY, and REAFFIRMING one's ALREADY FIXED ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, and thus RECONFIRMING their ALREADY 'BIASED CONFIRMATION'.