Quote - > Quote - the truth can only be known by us percieving it. the sea is green, what is green. it's a name given to a colour, what is colour...we make our truths. without us there is no truth.

 

without us the sea would still reflect the same spectrum of light in complete disreguard for the label we use to describe, quantify, and measure it.  

would it?  in truth if no one is here who is to say what colour the sea reflects. i see you never went to the  url i placed about time.  can you actaully tell me what truth is?  see yo8 use words to descirbe it yet you don't describe it. you only describe an idea of truth.

Quote -   the church tells us their is a god. to many that is the truth.

 

it is not truth, it is faith. using the term truth to describe a belief is a misuse of the word.

not  according to some philosophers. again for the truth to exist for us we have to have faith in it.

Quote -   democracey tells us freedom is everything we believe it as the truth, we quote it as the truth we, us , mankind, homosapien the social animal makes his own truths yet where on this planet is there total freedom apart from death. the world is flat. for centuries this was the truth as we know it how we percieved it to be. truth like time is relative to who is using it. i'm not implying anything.

 

when faced with the statement that anti-gay people were latent homosexuals, you offered two points to oppose that statement. First the logical fallacy Reductio ad absurdum/straw man, I beleive. You substituded the subject of the statement for inequavlent subjects then declaired the original statement absurd based on your modified statement.

second you implied that the statement is inaccurate because the individuals whom you have heard proclaim such an idea are predominatly gay. This being a fallacy known as Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

and your point is?

I do not promote the idea that the original statement is true, I only know of the origin of the argument from the article i read many years ago when the subject was of interest to me. I am only pointing out that the statements you have made in opposition to the original statement are not logical and offer no real opposition.

why not?

Quote -   i'm stating fact. facts are facts..yes they are but not all facts are truthfull. some are only percieved to be so.

 

In the context of the sentance that was quoted, i do not belive the author intended the word "truth" to be interprited as perception or faith/belief. 

and is the lack of belief your truth the truth or not a truth. the word truth has many meanings what you believe it to be may be right or wrong either way it's just your opinion. one you're entitled too of course

Quote - take your study which shows anti gays are latent homosexuals.  take weinbergs use and conception of the word homophobia stating that predjudice against gays was all to do with the individual. his self loathing and so on etc. you use these as your truth. in fact studies since have shown predjudice against gays..anti gays. is a social desease the same as colour predjudice. it has less to do with the individual than with the herd mentality. backround, area, class all play there part in whether or not one social class resents another. if your going to read studies read the latest ones

 

after following the link and reading the information Weinbergs statements seem consistant with the conclusions of the study from which the original statment was derived. In fact the page "Sexual Prejudice: Motivations" seems to be a similar to the older study's reasoning behind their conclusion.

then you read something different than me. the study went on to say that weinbergs homophobia was the wrong word to describe sexual predjudice. as it had little to do with a phobia.  i 'd love for you to expand. weinberg was of the belief that homophobia was a product of individual taboo, fear, and self. whilst the following study describes it as socialogical. how different can that not be.