Maybe try saying why you don't consider the earlier response to answer the question? Otherwise I'd have to try to make wild guesses about why you'd be playing "poorly programmed AI bot."

It can't be objectively true what you say.
So basically your are saying it is your subjective opinion.
Why should any one care about your subjective opinion?

Well no shit that it can't be objectively true, since nothing is objectively true. When you ask how one can know if it's true, you're asking how one arrives at a subjective judgment about the relation of a proposition to the world ("to the world" since I use correspondence theory). That's what I answered. So why ask the same question again?

Why should you care about my subjective judgment re truth? I wouldn't say that you should, but after all, you asked, didn't you?

There are a bunch of different reasons why one might or might not care about someone's opinion. It's up to you ultimately.

nothing is objectively true. — Terrapin Station

You say this as if it could be objectively true.
It is just your opinion, you realize that right?

Say this as if it could be objectively true. — m-theory

How the heck do you "say it as if it's objectively true"?

You mean, "I read that as if (you're saying) it's objectively true, because I have a difficult time not assuming that truth is objective."

It is just your opinion, you realize that right? — m-theory

The fact isn't just my opinion. Whether it's true is.

At any rate, why are you derailing this thread so that it's a rehash a discussion we've already had? If you want to continue truth as a topic why don't we move this over to the thread where our previous discussion about it took place, the thread asking whether truth is mind-dependent?

The fact isn't just my opinion. — Terrapin Station

It is not an objective fact, it is just a subjective fact that it is your opinion.

I did not derail the thread, you mentioned something you believed as though it was an objective fact or somehow objectively true.

It is not, it is just your opinion.

Hell is other people. - Sartre — darthbarracuda

Is J. P. the devil?

It is not an objective fact, — m-theory

On your view you mean? Because it's not on my view. On my view, that nothing is objectively true is an objective fact. It's just that it's not objectively true.

It is not an objective fact that is true.

It is not an objective fact that is true. — m-theory

Assuming that's written as you intended to write it, I agree with that. It's not an objective fact that is (what's) true. What's true is a judgment between propositions and facts, and as a judgment, we're in the realm of the subjective.

Again, though, can we move this discussion to the "Is truth mind-dependent" thread?

He didn't say it per se, a character in a book he wrote did. The reason being that other people make us self-conscious, make us view ourselves as an object from the outside. — Wosret

The story is "No Exit" and the passage is:

“All those glances that I eat … Ha, you’re only two? I thought you were much more numerous. So that’s hell. … I never thought You remember: the sulfur, the stake, the grill .. Oh What a joke. No need to grill: hell is other people”.

Right it is not objectively true that it is an objective fact.
We agree.

Right it is not objectively true that it is an objective fact. — m-theory

Right. So what was the point of all of that nonsense?

The point is that it is only subjectively true that it is an objective fact.
Not objectively true.

Sure. But whether it's an objective fact in no way hinges on truth (judgments).

It's just like noting that the existence of a banana has nothing to do with what you think about the taste of it.

Right, the facts don't hinge on your judgement.
And it is only your judgement that it is an objective fact.

You can't move from your judgement that it is true to that therefor it is an objective fact.

And it is only your judgement that it is an objective fact. — m-theory

No. Not at all. Something being an objective fact has nothing to do with my judgment. (Normally at least--there are cases where this differs, but not for the vast majority of cases.)

You can't move from your judgement that it is true to that it is a fact. — m-theory

I don't know what "move from" refers to, really. My judgment is about the relationship of a proposition to the facts (since I'm a correspondence theorist).

No. Not at all. Something being an objective fact has nothing to do with my judgment. — Terrapin Station

Exactly.
Your judgement does not matter.
That was my point.
What is the objective fact is the case regardless of what you believe is true.

Your judgement does not matter.
That was my point.
What is the objective fact is the case regardless of what you believe is true. — m-theory

It doesn't matter in the sense that it has no impact on most facts, sure.

I agree.
The facts are the facts, regardless of subjective truths.

Right, at least in the vast majority of cases.

Also you don't need "subjective" in front of "truth," since all truth is subjective.

This is only subjectively true.

<sigh> as is everything, so there's no need to point that out.

I point it out because the truth of this has nothing to do with what is objectively the case.

It does have something to do with what's objectively the case if we're using correspondence theory.

The statement "All truths are subjective" is not an objective statement if it has a truth value.

Statements aren't objective period. You can simply be referring to the ink marks or sounds or whatever, but they require meaning to be statements (or propositions).

That statements aren't objective has no bearing on the fact that truth-value has something to do with the objective world if we're using correspondence theory.

Right, so your statements are not objective facts.
And they only correspond to the subjective case.
For example "All truths are subjective" only corresponds to the subjective, by definition.

Right, so your statements are not objective facts. — m-theory

That's correct. Statements are not objective facts, but they can be about objective facts. That's a matter of how someone thinks about the statement in question.

And they only correspond to the subjective case. — m-theory

I don't know what "the subjective case" is, but this not the case re correspondence theory. Correspondence theory is a matter of assessing propositions with respect to (most often) objective facts.

For example "All truths are subjective" only corresponds to the subjective, by definition. — m-theory

No. It's an objective fact that all truths are subjective. It's not, however, or objectively true that all truths are subjective. What makes it true (on correspondence theory) is someone judging how the proposition ("All truths are subjective") matches objective facts (namely, that all truths are subjective).

There are no objective truths, by your definition, so the "truth" part of the statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to anything objective.
And by definition the subjective part does not correspond to anything objective.
The statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to any objective fact.