Well that should not be surprising being that there is a disagreement about what it is rational to believe.

Theist are not much better in my experience, and regard atheist as irrational for their lack of belief.

From your position you can't know if we can or can not obtain truthfully objective facts.

thats because there ARE no objective facts — intrapersona

This is only subjective.

EVERYTHING is subjective. — intrapersona

This is only subjective.

You still haven't proven anything about the objective.

From you position, that everything is subjective, you can't prove there is no objective facts.
You can only prove what is subjective to you.
Which amounts to your opinion.

So what, in your opine everything is subjective.
Meanwhile in the real world there are objective facts which you have done nothing to disprove.

Basically by saying there is only the subjective you set yourself up so that you can't disprove that anything is objective.

It is impossible, as you point out.

The subjective can't disprove the objective.

objective facts don't exist. — intrapersona

This is not an objective fact.

there is only subjectivity — intrapersona

This is not an objective fact

that is all you know that is all you will ever know! — intrapersona

This is not an objective fact

Nothing you have here has any consequences for objective facts.

You keep telling me I am saying it is an objective fact that it is impossible to find any objective facts. What is wrong with you? We have already established that it is subjective fact AND have repeated that it is about 3-4 times... seriously?!?! — intrapersona

Subjective facts don't prove anything about objective facts.

So what, it is a subjective fact, who cares?

It is not an objective fact that it is impossible to find any objective facts.
See the pattern yet?

By definition you have not refuted anything about objective facts.
At least not without being self refuting.

That runs afoul with the same issue.

It is not an objective fact that objective fact's don't exist.
If it was, it would be self refuting.

Yes but it is not an objective fact.
So why should I care?

It does not refute anything about objective facts.

We can't go beyond subjectivity
is refuted
if it is supposed to be an objective fact

No I am saying that what you said is not objectively true.
At least not without being self refuting.

Caus your a bigot! — intrapersona

lol, you are trolling me right now?

You mean it is not true unless I voluntarily admit I am wrong?

Right it is only subjective.
Because you can't go beyond the subjective.

This means it is not an objective fact what you have said.

If it was an objective fact, then you would have gone beyond the subjective, which you cannot do.

So it it isn't a fact that you can't go beyond your subjectivity because you can't go beyond subjectivity? seems circular to me. — intrapersona

Me too.
I wonder why people argue that.

Like you said in this thread already, these are truths about subjectivity... as are all truths. In fact can't say anything about objective truth. — intrapersona

Then you can't say it is an objective fact that we can't go beyond subjectivity.
That would be self refuting.

The fact is you can't go beyond your subjectivity, and all you have are inferences about objectivity. That is A FACT m-theory, don't you get that? — intrapersona

It is not an objective fact.
After all you can't go beyond subjectivity remember.

I can't prove it to you.
I am fine with that, as long as you agree that some things a true involuntarily and that it is practical to use measurements.

The point I am making is that, for practical purposes, some things are less subject to interpretation than others.

The sooner you embrace this fact the better off you will be.

Follow up question.
If your life depended on it.
Would you rather I simply interpret what is 6 ft, or use a tape measure?

Don't you agree that is why we use tapes, because they do not interpret?

You are not being very reasonable.
Either tapes can interpret or they can not.
Which would you say is the case?

There was someone on here that mentioned there are four different types of love I think that I agree with them from what they described.

I think you are referring to romantic love.
I really like this lady on that subject.

Yes but you did not answer my question.
Do tapes interpret?

lol

Do you agree that tapes do not have minds and thus do not interpret what is being measured?

If so wouldn't you agree that is the very reason for using a tape, so that when I say 6 ft, and you say 6 ft, we can refer to something that is not just an interpretation but a thing which is consistently a given finite length?

No I measure with a tape, which does not have a mind.

What that tape will measure does not depend on it's mind, it has none, so it does not interpret what I measure.

I am 6 ft tall in the sense that this is what I will measure.
Others, nor myself, cannot simply decide that this is not what I will measure.

It is not subject to interpretation as far as the measuring mechanism is concerned.

It is not voluntary that I measure 6 ft, whether I measure or someone else does.

When I am measured.

I am 6 ft tall though.

I don't think that should be controversial.
Everybody is irrational to some degree, we all suffer from cognitive biases.

Nobody is completely rational, and likely it is especially true of those that believe they are.

I could argue that the RNC was stacked against Trump.
But he still won the nomination.

I don't understand why it is cheating to win more delegates than your opponent, that is the entire point.

So Hilary forced her to stack the DNC in her favor, or bribed her or something?

I am still not sure how it is Hilary who is responsible for the cheating?

So your claiming the DNC cheated and Sanders would have won more delegates than Hilary if the DNC had been truly impartial?

Yes but Hilary had more delegates than Sanders, how did she cheat to get them?

I am not sure how it is cheating though?

Why is it cheating if the DNC supports the candidate they believe is stronger?

As long as you are not implying that truth is not contingent upon facts I have no issues.

Cheated?

Well I don't agree that Hilary is at the same spot on the spectrum as Trump.

I did not intend to say that Trump is as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but given the opportunity to wield the same power as they, I am not so sure he would less prone to abuse.