damn_registrars's Journal: The Pudge Dictionary, 2013 Edition, v1.0

Constitutional - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Discussion - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

False - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Hypocrisy, Hypocrite - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Liberties, Liberty - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Lie, Lies, Lying - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Logic - has no meaning or definition

No - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Reason, Reasonable, Unreasonable - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

Takeover - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

True, Truth - means whatever Pudge wants it to mean

I'm probably forgetting some here, please let me know what else belongs here. Maybe we can scrape some money together and set up a pudge-wiki somewhere?

And of course, my relationship with Pudge goes back to at least October of 2008, when I asked him a question directly related to his journal entry that made him so angry that he promptly added me to his perma-hate list, where I have been for over 4 years now. Perhaps that in and of itself says something about what he thinks about rehabilitation.

In Summary

[smittyoneeach]

The notion of someone holding to the existence of an objective truth is offensive?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

The notion of someone holding to the existence of an objective truth is offensive?

The notion itself, not necessarily. However when someone insists to no end that their subjective truth is the world's only objective truth, then there is a problem. It is impossible to have a discussion with someone like Pudge who claims to be the ultimate arbiter of truth as he will on a whim declare that anything he did not say was invariably false.

Now is it absolutely offensive at that? Not necessarily. However if there is already a conversation taking place and then someone like him comes in an

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

However when someone insists to no end that their subjective truth is the world's only objective truth, then there is a problem.

Well, yeah.
Existence is a subjective bag. What gets tedious on the other end is when people veer toward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism [wikipedia.org].
It's one thing to be in touch with one's own fallibility; quite another to jump from the 'fallen' nature of existence to saying that no objective truth is possible, even if a challenge to get at.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

However when someone insists to no end that their subjective truth is the world's only objective truth, then there is a problem.

Well, yeah.

Being as he was making exclusive claim to objective truth, I would expect then that you would have a problem with him as well.

It's one thing to be in touch with one's own fallibility

You might want to suggest that to him, as he seems to view himself as being several orders of magnitude less fallible than the pope.

quite another to jump from the 'fallen' nature of existence to saying that no objective truth is possible, even if a challenge to get at

I never claimed objective truth to be impossible. I simply stated that when someone comes in and insists that their highly skewed subjective truth is somehow exactly the same as the universal objective truth, then there is a problem and really no rea

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Hell, he and I are basically still having the same discussion that began in October of 2008 that he never wanted to conclude.

I sort of gathered that.
Informational exchanges are fine, and even a "Shut up!" "No, you shut up!" can be amusing for a while, as long as both sides are contributing humorous variations. But if the RPMs on the circular arguments get too high, motion sickness ensues.