Armed, civilized and polite

Hatcher's Armory
#22

Interesting thought on Truth … let’s see if I can give an example and let me know if that is a fallacy or not. I’ll use a sport example as I have actually experienced this and can, hopefully, relay it properly.

Let’s say I’m the next guy up to bat. It’s just me against that pitcher in the moment. The pitcher wants to prevent me from hitting the ball in play or he may want to strike me out or, and I want to hit a home run. Now I know I do, because that was my thoughts at this particular moment in my life and this particular pitcher. So, I let 2 throws go by trying to get the ‘feel’ for his pace and pick up his motion. I’m wanting a fast ball high and tight. He throws a ball to the outside and I watch, Ball 1. He throws a high fast ball and I swing missing badly. So I step out of the box and reset. I believe he wants to throw me another high fastball as he thinks I will miss. He throws a fastball alright but it’s my zone, I see it and turn on it and it’s gone, homerun over the left field fence.

Now my Truth is that I picked up his motion and believed I had his timing down and that if I got my pitch it was out. Sure enough I hit a home run, therefore I am right. Thus, The Truth in my world.

Now the pitcher, he felt he was going to strike me out and felt he had my number and that he was going to strike me out up until I hit the homerun. Afterwards, his Truth was that the only reason I had hit that homerun was that he missed his pitch and put it too low. So he felt that he didn’t perform and that’s the reason I was able to hit the homerun, not that I had picked up his pace and motions. Thus, the Truth in his world.

In this example, there are 2 Truths and not a 3rd truth. My Truth and His Truth are the only valid Truths in this situation.

Does that make sense or is it still a logical fallacy to you?

#23

You are conflating “right” and “truth”. They are different words with different definitions.

There is no definition of “right” that applies to your argument at that point. To be “right” your perspective has to be provably correct. In order to be provably correct it is necessary to know if the pitcher did or did not make a mistake. That creates a third perspective: yours, the pitcher’s, and the truth (what is “right”).

You present the question as a mutual exclusion. It is not.

Your argument contains a fallacy (presenting “right” and “truth” as the same concept). Disregarding the fallacy your argument makes sense.

However, your argument is based on the second definition of “truth”.

2 Likes
#25

Good we are getting a little closer I think.

In my context to using the word ‘right’, it was in relation to my Truth. Not the pitcher’s Truth or a “3rd persons perspectives” Truth. In my Truth, I am right. Nobody is more qualified to determine my Truth and whether or not it is ‘right’but me. As well as the pitchers Truth is right to him only.

This is how I see the whole argument. Most have been conditioned and think that there needs to be a 3rd perspective to determine who is right and therefore what the Truth is in the matter. I call this the “King Solomon” syndrome.

Let me finish out this story. This pitcher and I are friends and have been since high school when we competed against each other. We have talked about this situation a lot because with that homerun, we won district and that took us to championships. I can tell you that I know I read him and he threw his best stuff that day. He believes he made a mistake and that it was the reason I hit it. So there are 2 Truths, there can be no other Truth to situation but each of our beliefs.

It’s difficult to believe that there can be more than one Truth in a situation. I understand.

I’ve really enjoyed this, sincerely, thanks.

#26

Truth=reality. So unless your dealing with quantum issues, there is only one. You and your pitcher have different perspectives on what happened, and without additional evidence may not be able to obtain evidence of what actually occurred, but without that additional corroborating evidence, neither of you can establish reality or Truth…

BTW, individual truth means truth is relative, do you also believe morality is relative? :grinning:

6 Likes
#27

“Terrorist” attack without a gun…

#28

That’s because you think there is a Universal Truth. I reject that idea.

In this example, there is no other ‘corroborating evidence’. Because of that, then there are 2Truths. His and mine. Not if I were lying or he was lying, then there maybe a case to be made. But I ‘believe’ that I read him completely and it didn’t matter whether he put the ball high or not I would have homerunned it. That’s the only Truth in that sutation for me. Therefore, for me the absolute Truth, he feels the same way. Nobody else can know the Truth. They either believe me or him and that’s it.

I propose that any other perspective is impotent. It’s the reason the world has justified enslavement of people.

#29

Owen, he is a descriptive example as to why I believe your perspective is wrong.

Lets say, I am walking down a hiking path and encounter a small iron object that I believe to be a meteorite. If I choose to believe that was placed there by someone who manufactured it, does that make that belief true? Is it not more likely that it fell from the sky (hence meteorite) despite the fact that I did not see it fall and impact (hence no corroborating evidence)?

In the case of your example, lets postulate that the field was covered by high resolution/high speed cameras and we were able to concretely determine that your friends pitch was ‘off’ his intended trajectory hence a mistake. Obviously at that point his ‘truth’ is Objectively True (ie reality) and yours is not. That is the point, though, just because neither of you can establish which version (if either) is actually a statement of objective reality doesn’t change the fact that there was an objective reality to the situation that has nothing to do with the beliefs of either of you.

Reality (just like morality :smile:) exists without regard to perspectives.

#30

There is no DUTY to assist, but if you can prove they were in a life threatening situation that you could legally use deadly force to protect yourself in than you can “legally” assist and protect them as well.

There are a lot of different schools of thought on that but it really comes down to this… If you have your LTC/CHL you (should) constantly be aware that drawing your gun is your LAST CHOICE OPTION. I heard it best described as something along the lines of, when you’re carrying, you’re going to lose every argument and hide your tail and run at the slightest provocation. Because once you draw and if you fire, you’re immediately under the scrutiny of the law and the evidence against you. Did you make a bad judgement call? Will someone else think you did? Was that person really a lethal threat? Was there a way around this whole thing? etc etc etc

Even if you win the legal battle it can still screw you for years to come.
I have my LTC as well and I regularly have to explain that to people who don’t have it or don’t understand the nuances.
My gun is to protect my life and my loved ones lives (and others lives if the situation arises).
But if I have any other options I’m going to take them first.

TL;DR Wall of text, You can help, but is it in your best interest to do so/at what cost?

1 Like
#31

This is all interesting for sure.

#32

Exceptional advice - and I’d follow it with this - Be the one who goes home after defending yourself and your family. And be the one to relate the story. And - be the one who carries insurance to pay for the lawyers that are sure to come.

#33

Definitely, Thankfully Texas has Civil Immunity if you can make it past the Grand Jury.
I’m sure there are a lot of other legal avenues that I haven’t even considered though that need to be covered as well.

1 Like
#34

Just to pick a nit, because that’s the way I roll.

“lets postulate that the field was covered by high resolution/high speed cameras and we were able to concretely determine that your friends pitch was ‘off’ his intended trajectory hence a mistake.”

I don’t understand how " we were able to concretely determine that your friends pitch was ‘off’" no matter how many cameras there were or where they were located. The cameras can’t record intent.

Russell Ward

1 Like
#35

Camera can record velocity, position, etc. from the moment it leaves the glove. Which can determine if the ball went where and how the pitcher intended. Ie, curve ball at belly buton…

#36

All of those calculations will place the ball… right where it went. It dosen’t give any information about the pitchers’ planned location.

Russell Ward

1 Like
#37

If you were able to record all of that information it would be possible to determine if there were “outside” influences, wind or a passing bird or such, that caused to ball to not go where the pitcher threw it.

Russell Ward

#38

You can also tell how perfectly the pitcher pitched his intended ball. All baseball pitches have specific physical characteristics.

#39

Correct, the pitcher tells you the type of pitch and the intended target. The other information tells how well the pitcher carried throughwith that intent.

#40

That will inform you about the movement of the ball after it leaves the pitchers’ hand, curve or slider, etc. But it doesn’t tell you the point of aim that the pitcher intended the ball to go. There are many errors in technique that will effect the flight of the ball. Were they really errors or not. Did the pitcher perform the throw poorly or did he perform the throw perfectly?

Russell Ward

#41

True the pitcher tells you two things, their target and the type of pitch. The physical measurements tell you how well they executed