What are we trying to achieve on this forum?

[Walker]

To clarify the ask: Do you think it’s possible to accurately understand and even present another’s POV without personally holding that POV, or without pointing out why you don't?

I ask in relation to a method of learning in which you assume something is true, then figure out how it could be true ... rather than dwelling on why it conflicts with your POV, or conflicts with professor's POV.

[Age]

Too late?

Why did you write a statement, but with a question mark at the end, here?

..because you can't spell.
What does "to late" mean?

So, out of all I have written, you want to pull me up on the missing of just one letter, only, and what you class and consider as a 'misspelling'. Which really is quite humorous considering the way you actually write and spell some words, here.

So, the reason WHY you added a question mark at the end of a statement is because I can NOT spell.

Were/are you even AWARE that you did NOT write Accurately and Correctly, as well?

Exactly like EVERY sentence and word each and EVERY one of them MEANS whatever you want 'them' TO MEAN.

[LuckyR]

There are many Philosophical topics that involve competing interests, thus one can reasonably argue either side. One side's logic may be currently more popular, but it's not necessarily "right". Thus the discussion doesn't have a "winner" assuming that both sides presented logical arguments. Sort of an agree to disagree, situation.

[Age]

There are many Philosophical topics that involve competing interests, thus one can reasonably argue either side.

BUT, NO one can 'argue' AGAINST ANY and EVERY 'sound AND valid argument'. See, there are NO ACTUAL "sides" in regards TO the ACTUAL Truth of things.

The ONLY REAL things, which one can so-called 'reasonably argue either side' are you human beings OWN personal views, which just do NOT ALIGN WITH the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things, ANYWAY.

If some thing can be 'argued' AGAINST, then 'it' is NOT worth 'arguing' ABOUT, and certainly NOT worth REPEATING. 'Sound AND valid arguments' are, REALLY, the ONLY 'arguments' worth PRESENTING, as they CAN and WILL STAND the so-called 'test of time', forever, since NO one could refute it.

One side's logic may be currently more popular, but it's not necessarily "right". Thus the discussion doesn't have a "winner" assuming that both sides presented logical arguments. Sort of an agree to disagree, situation.

And, let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'agreeing to disagree' can all too quickly lead to RESENTMENT.

Also, WHY 'agree' TO DISAGREE, anyway, especially when the ACTUAL Truth IS, HERE, FOR ALL TO LOOK AT, RECOGNIZE, and SEE?

Considering that HOW TO FIND the ACTUAL Truth OF the Truly MEANINGFUL things, in Life is, REALLY, A VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, 'agreeing to disagree' is even MORE SILLY and FOOLISH.

[LuckyR]

Anyone who claims that it is easy for them to know the actual truth, is implying that those who hold opposite viewpoints believe in untruthes. They are naively ignoring the reality that those other folks are quite possibly equally convinced that, in fact THEY have access to the "actual truth" and it is YOU who are professing an untruth.

At that point to a third party observer what "truth" is becomes subjective.

[Flannel Jesus]

Anyone who claims that it is easy for them to know the actual truth, is implying that those who hold opposite viewpoints believe in untruthes. They are naively ignoring the reality that those other folks are quite possibly equally convinced that, in fact THEY have access to the "actual truth" and it is YOU who are professing an untruth.

Couldn't agree more. It's easy to say the truth is easy, it's much harder to actually prove it. If it were really that easy, disagreement wouldn't be so common.

[Age]

Anyone who claims that it is easy for them to know the actual truth, is implying that those who hold opposite viewpoints believe in untruthes.

WHY have you MADE this ASSUMPTION and JUMPED TO this CONCLUSION for, EXACTLY?

you OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET CONSIDERED the Facts, here.

They are naively ignoring the reality that those other folks are quite possibly equally convinced that, in fact THEY have access to the "actual truth" and it is YOU who are professing an untruth.

OBVIOUSLY you are STILL NOT YET FULLY CONSIDERING what has been SAID and RAISED, here.

At that point to a third party observer what "truth" is becomes subjective.

Does this 'third party' HAVE the ACTUAL Truth or is its OWN truth and viewpoint 'subjective' ONLY, as well?

See, could the claim that, 'Anyone who claims that it is easy for them to know the actual truth, is implying that those who hold opposite viewpoints believe in untruthes', just be their OWN viewpoint, and thus their OWN truth, ONLY, and NOT be what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS itself?

I will, AGAIN, suggest that if you want to come, here, and make CLAIMS, then you, FIRST, have the ACTUAL PROOF and/or Facts that back up and support your CLAIM PRIOR TO MAKING the CLAIM.

[Age]

Anyone who claims that it is easy for them to know the actual truth, is implying that those who hold opposite viewpoints believe in untruthes. They are naively ignoring the reality that those other folks are quite possibly equally convinced that, in fact THEY have access to the "actual truth" and it is YOU who are professing an untruth.

Couldn't agree more. It's easy to say the truth is easy, it's much harder to actually prove it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANOTHER one MAKING CLAIMS based ON NOTHING AT ALL other than their OWN viewpoints and/or OWN BELIEFS, ONLY.

LOL It is ABSOLUTELY EASY, and SIMPLE, TO PROVE that FINDING, SEEING, RECOGNIZING, and/or KNOWING the ACTUAL Truth of things IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

But, OBVIOUSLY one would HAVE TO ALREADY KNOW what makes 'things' ACTUALLY True, as well as ALREADY KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'the Truth' FROM 'the truth'. Which would ALSO MEANING 'objectivity' FROM 'subjectivity' as well as HOW each is obtained, EXACTLY.

If it were really that easy, disagreement wouldn't be so common.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one BASING 'things' ON NOTHING MORE than their OWN, prejudiced, BELIEF, ONLY.

If one were to QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'this one' on its CLAIMS, here, then it would NOT be ABLE TO back up and support SAID CLAIMS with ANY ACTUAL PROOF NOR Facts. And, what WOULD BE REVEALED IS that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO GO ON, here, other than its OWN 'Assumptions, (which are based on nothing at all other than its own) Past Experiences', or its OWN APE-thinking as I like to call it.

[Age]

Obtaining the ACTUAL Truth of things, which NO one could refute, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED. AGAIN, that is once one learns, and thus knows, HOW TO.

But, OBVIOUSLY, if one has NOT YET LEARNED, and thus KNOWS HOW TO, then, to them, it would appear that it would NOT be simple, and easy.

[Flannel Jesus]

LOL It is ABSOLUTELY EASY, and SIMPLE, TO PROVE that FINDING, SEEING, RECOGNIZING, and/or KNOWING the ACTUAL Truth of things IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

But, OBVIOUSLY one would HAVE TO ALREADY KNOW what makes 'things' ACTUALLY True, as well as ALREADY KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'the Truth' FROM 'the truth'. Which would ALSO MEANING 'objectivity' FROM 'subjectivity' as well as HOW each is obtained, EXACTLY.

So quit yapping and do it.

You talk so much about how easy it is to find truth, and yet you talk so little about any truths themselves.

It's like a kid who says I CAN RUN FASTER THAN ANYONE. So the other kids say great, then do it, let's see it. And he says in reply, IT'S EASY TO SEE I CAN RUN FASTER THAN ANYONE, ANYONE WITH EYES TO SEE CAN SEE THAT I CAN RUN FASTER THEN ANYONE.

the kids just yaps and yaps and never runs, and so of course nobody believes him.

That's you. You're the kid yapping about running but never running.

Quit yapping and get to the point already.

[FlashDangerpants]

LOL It is ABSOLUTELY EASY, and SIMPLE, TO PROVE that FINDING, SEEING, RECOGNIZING, and/or KNOWING the ACTUAL Truth of things IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

But, OBVIOUSLY one would HAVE TO ALREADY KNOW what makes 'things' ACTUALLY True, as well as ALREADY KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'the Truth' FROM 'the truth'. Which would ALSO MEANING 'objectivity' FROM 'subjectivity' as well as HOW each is obtained, EXACTLY.

So quit yapping and do it.

I once challenged to him to make good on a promise to explain EXACTLY HOW the BRAIN works. He got as far as it being the thing inside your head that does the thinking and then awarded himself full points for a job thoroughly well done. He's going to do that to you now.

[Flannel Jesus]

I once challenged to him to make good on a promise to explain EXACTLY HOW the BRAIN works. He got as far as it being the thing inside your head that does the thinking and then awarded himself full points for a job thoroughly well done. He's going to do that to you now.

yeah that sounds like Age. go easy on him though, it's tough coming back in time 200 years.

I found Age speaking in front of a crowd about his experience: https://youtu.be/o5X1m16-Jvc?si=1ycqLtEixAb3nZAq&t=189

[LuckyR]

Anyone who claims that it is easy for them to know the actual truth, is implying that those who hold opposite viewpoints believe in untruthes. They are naively ignoring the reality that those other folks are quite possibly equally convinced that, in fact THEY have access to the "actual truth" and it is YOU who are professing an untruth.

Couldn't agree more. It's easy to say the truth is easy, it's much harder to actually prove it. If it were really that easy, disagreement wouldn't be so common.

Before tackling the Actual Truth, you'd think mastering the Caps key would come first.

Baby steps...

[Age]

LOL It is ABSOLUTELY EASY, and SIMPLE, TO PROVE that FINDING, SEEING, RECOGNIZING, and/or KNOWING the ACTUAL Truth of things IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

But, OBVIOUSLY one would HAVE TO ALREADY KNOW what makes 'things' ACTUALLY True, as well as ALREADY KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'the Truth' FROM 'the truth'. Which would ALSO MEANING 'objectivity' FROM 'subjectivity' as well as HOW each is obtained, EXACTLY.

So quit yapping and do it.

LOL Do 'what', EXACTLY?

How about you do it, "yourself"?

You talk so much about how easy it is to find truth, and yet you talk so little about any truths themselves.

REALLY?

If yes, then WHY have you NEVER POINTED OUT what I have SAID, here, which you BELIEVE is NOT true?

It's like a kid who says I CAN RUN FASTER THAN ANYONE. So the other kids say great, then do it, let's see it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What do these 'others kids' what 'that one' to do? Run by "itself"?

What you do, here, is like the 'other kids' are doing, there. WHY do you, also, NOT STAND IN LINE, PUT UP A CHALLENGE, AND THEN ACTUALLY 'run', TO SEE who IS ACTUALLY FASTER?

And he says in reply, IT'S EASY TO SEE I CAN RUN FASTER THAN ANYONE, ANYONE WITH EYES TO SEE CAN SEE THAT I CAN RUN FASTER THEN ANYONE.

Now you are, AGAIN, just being TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and ABSURD.

the kids just yaps and yaps and never runs, and so of course nobody believes him.

Are you NOT AWARE that the 'other kids' HAVE TO ALSO 'run' AS WELL?

OBVIOUSLY IF 'they' DO NOT, then NO one WILL, AGAIN, KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, here.

That's you. You're the kid yapping about running but never running.

LOL your ANALOGY DOES NOT WORK FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

Quit yapping and get to the point already.

LOL AGAIN, what IS 'the point', EXACTLY?

WHY do you NOT get to 'the point', ALREADY?

[Age]

LOL It is ABSOLUTELY EASY, and SIMPLE, TO PROVE that FINDING, SEEING, RECOGNIZING, and/or KNOWING the ACTUAL Truth of things IS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.

But, OBVIOUSLY one would HAVE TO ALREADY KNOW what makes 'things' ACTUALLY True, as well as ALREADY KNOWING the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'the Truth' FROM 'the truth'. Which would ALSO MEANING 'objectivity' FROM 'subjectivity' as well as HOW each is obtained, EXACTLY.

So quit yapping and do it.

I once challenged to him to make good on a promise to explain EXACTLY HOW the BRAIN works. He got as far as it being the thing inside your head that does the thinking and then awarded himself full points for a job thoroughly well done.

'This', here, IS OBVIOUSLY A FLAT OUT LIE.

I have NEVER EVER SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY thing like 'this' AT ALL.

He's going to do that to you now.

you NEVER CHALLENGED me "flashdangerpants".

And, if you BELIEVE that I AM GOING TO DO 'that', then PROVE that I WILL.

CHALLENGE me, "flashdangerpants". That is; if you BELIEVE you ARE ABLE TO.

Now, for ANY one who WANTS TO CHALLENGE me to explain, EXACTLY, HOW the 'brain' WORKS, or for that matter on ANY thing ELSE that I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN, here, then PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO IT.