• NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s because words on their own all have definitions. The subjectivity is created contextually. I swear it feels like I’m talking to a bot.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      No need to get insulting, ma nude. Still not sure in what world your statement could be regarded as subjective in intend. Please, enlighten me.

      • NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Opinions, such as “all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy” are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can’t even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective

          I disagree. IMHO, the accusation of blasphemy presupposes a dogma to actually make sense.

          • NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?

            Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              … Any dogma? It’s like the claim “that’s illegal” presupposes a body of law. No matter which one.

              • NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.

                  In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.

                  • NeverNudeNo13@lemmings.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Velocity is not suggestive because it is defined as speed in a direction.

                    In your example you are only taking speed, assuming direction and stating velocity.