You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right? Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable. That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable…
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well. But that is beside my point. I didn’t address why the information is valid or not. I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued…
Have you met humans? We play games all the time. Truth, clarity. It’s the last thing on the mind of 99% of us. That’s a reality that must be acknowledged.
Disallowing what…
Disallowing privileged classes of information. Because our system of talking, comparing notes, synthesizing models, depends upon scrutinizability. Privileged classes of information mangle that.
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.
Unless you can read minds, which you can’t (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.
I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you’re entitled to feel), but it doesn’t actually change the objective truth:
Feelings are “excluded from scrutiny” not because “we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy”, but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.
If you believe that’s not true, then answer this:
If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I’m not?
If you can’t answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.
So now I’ve lead you to water, and it’s up to you whether you drink or not. I’m not going to waste any more of my time on this.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right? Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable. That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.
If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I’m not?
You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.
Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)
If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.
Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well. But that is beside my point. I didn’t address why the information is valid or not. I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Have you met humans? We play games all the time. Truth, clarity. It’s the last thing on the mind of 99% of us. That’s a reality that must be acknowledged.
Disallowing privileged classes of information. Because our system of talking, comparing notes, synthesizing models, depends upon scrutinizability. Privileged classes of information mangle that.
Unless you can read minds, which you can’t (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.
Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you’re entitled to feel), but it doesn’t actually change the objective truth:
Feelings are “excluded from scrutiny” not because “we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy”, but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.
If you believe that’s not true, then answer this:
If you can’t answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.
So now I’ve lead you to water, and it’s up to you whether you drink or not. I’m not going to waste any more of my time on this.