The ministry of propoganda strikes again. The Media stopped reporting Objectively years ago. Their Subjective propoganda nightly lies to the sheeple. Stop watching, let advertisers know you will not support them with your purchases if they advertise and support the liars. If nobody watches, and they get no advertising, they cannot survive. Let the treasonous marxist filth survive on nothing but their own prevarication.

Pessimistically speaking, It may well happen that the sparate branches of the Ministry of Propaganda may loss their advertisers only to be supported by Tax funds "in defense" of the First Amendment & the "Peoples Right to be Informed".

HMMMMMM-

Objective truth is a good thing you say.

I, being an atheist, couldn' t agree more!

You listed opinion, assunption, BELIEF, rumor and suspicion as examples of subjective truth, ( untruth).

The leftist media is also the voracious media that needs something, ( I' d say ANYTHING), to fill the marathon that is their format these days. Who needs all this? 10 minutes a day does it for me on my morning radio show. ( They don' t have time to get into all this kind of trivia, so you get " just the facts, and quickly, too! ).

I do like the " closed on Sunday" deal, heck, ee all should have a day of rest. Hard to believe it was common just 30 years ago.

Dan Cathy says they support org' s that strengthen society and help raise people of character that we want as employees!

So, to him gay is a character issue?!

If it' s a character issue that means it' s a choice.

WWRONG!

Who in the world would choose to be discriminated against, looked down upon, ridiculed, attacked, etc?

Talk to some gay people, if you can overcome your prejudice for a minute, and you' ll find that it was no choice.

Many, many were born gay, in fact.

RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE- We actually have,in our little neighborhood of 14 homes, a very pleasant lady who is aghast that some of the neighbors let their 10 to 16 year old children interact with the male gay couple here.

" You know they recruit!" Yikes!

This lady seems intelligent and nice, so I asked her about her statement one day and she, of course, proceded to tell me all about her " women aglow" religious group and how the bible condemns gays.

You ever read the old testament? What a bunch of looney stories! Justified incest is just the beginning, and it' s not " allwi in the interpretation" guys. It' s every bit as looney as the muslims and buddhists.

In your conclusion you say it' s easy to fall for subjective information.

That' s how we have all these religions.

YOU WANT TO IMPROVE THE WORLD TRY OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

An unbelievable example of how religion makes us believe in nonsense is when the Jews had half their number!!!!!!! exterminated in WWII and still!!!!! They believe there is a god watching over them.

Will your god send me to hell for being objective?

(It was he who created us as thinking creaturs, right, so shouldn' t he have expected us to be more objective than to believe in virgin births, disappearing when dead, giving his "only begottn son for our sins-- ( does that actually make sense to ANYONE?"

I guess if you' re " born again" you believe Gandhi is in hell, too.

Seems like a lot of non- objective thinking going on.

AND POPEYES HAS THE BEST TASTING CHICKEN.

HAH!

Craig, I'll bypass the bulk of your rambling, anti-religion nonsense to get straight to my point. The urge to sin and to live as we wish, regardless of the consequences, is powerful. All we have to do is look at the number of well-publicized downfalls (John Edwards comes to mind) to see how people can be blinded by their desires and do stupid or self-destructive things. A little discrimination and ridicule will obviously be tolerated as an acceptable opportunity cost by "gay" people in exchange for the ability to more or less live openly in their lifestyle choice. There may even me a masochistic element to it. Objective truth requires a standard. For many it's Scripture. Since you treat your own opinions as fact, what's yours?

Jim-

Nonsense?

Ha

Scripture as a objective truth!!??

NOW we're talking nonsense.

On gays--you're saying that it would be better if they lived less openly? How is that good?

John Edwards was a "good churchgoing man", correct?

How about believing in what we can see and touch as a standard?

Craig Price

Your definition of "objective" and "subjective" information might be improved. You said that the former "is information we can see, hear, touch, feel or taste," while the latter "is based on opinion, assumption, belief, rumor and suspicion." Surely what comes to us through our five senses has an element of subjectivity to it, since everyone perceives slightly differently for physical and psychological reasons.

Case in point: Recently when my partner and I went downstairs for breakfast, the first thing he noticed was that the dishes were dirty while the first thing I noticed was that tree branches had fallen in the backyard. Neither of us would have noticed the other's concern until we pointed it out. We each fixated on the problems that interested us, based on the areas of the house that we tended to look at most frequently. Yes, our observations were both "objective" facts, but our subconscious minds select, arrange, and present objective facts in such a way that by the time these facts are identified as somehow relevant to our lives and are turned into usable "information," they already have a distinctly subjective cast.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to define "objective facts" as those which multiple people agree they can "see, hear, touch, feel or taste" when they are given the opportunity and directly asked about it. I wouldn't use the word "information" since that may imply a higher level of organization of facts.

As for "subjective" facts or information, I don't think that "opinion, assumption, belief, rumor and suspicion" quite gets at what you're going for. When I see a fallen branch in the backyard (objective fact), I form a belief that it has fallen (a true belief based on objective fact); I make an assumption that it was caused by last night's storm (quite a reasonable and scientific assumption); a rumor goes around the neighborhood that it has fallen (based in fact).

Your definition of objective information had a subjective cast to it, and your definition of subjective information had an objective cast to it. The distinction is therefore unclear to me.

Perhaps what you were going for is the idea that opinion, rumor, etc. is more *fallible* than empirical (sensory) perception?

TBL_

Good thinking!

Too bad you'rre like me and wait so long to post comments that very few read them.

I have tried to make myself only comment on today's columns as then many will read it and srgue.

That's a lot more fun and interesting, too.

There are some smart characters reading the Patriot Post!

You, for sure--

At least I got to enjoy it!