03 Mar 10
Originally posted by StarrmanAre you using "consistency of any given process" to mean that it holds 'true' to the process? If so, define true.
Why are you making it out to be something special? Integrity is the consistency of any given process. When you can define truth I'll consider whether or not it has any real bearing.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by kiki46Last evening a friend came over. I had 1 cold beer, and one beer that was warmer.
" doing the right thing when no one is looking"
your thoughts
I gave him the colder one.
I went to the store once and purchased about 18 bucks worth of foods. She rang it out at about 7 dollars. I said, "Um, I think you missed some stuff, does this bag look like 7 dollars worth of food"?
There is no instance of 'no one watching'. I see every decision I make, and I'm always around me... watching... and waiting to STRIKE!~
P-
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou really need a dictionary link after yesterday's fiasco with your definition of denigrate.
Are you using "consistency of any given process" to mean that it holds 'true' to the process? If so, define true.
There are no "what do you think it means"? with words, they are all well defined.
P-
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat? First you postulate that truth is a necessary condition of integrity and refuse to define truth, then you ask me to define a phrase I use in relation to your use of truth. Get real Freaky, if you can't bring your shizznit to the table, stay at the bar.
I'm not equivocating any more than you are. Define what you mean by the phrase, if 'true' doesn't convey your intent.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by PhlabibitI really need a dictionary to understand that denigrate means exactly what I said? I guess I don't follow. Somehow, you have denigrate as meaning something other than what both dictionary and and etymology has it.
You really need a dictionary link after yesterday's fiasco with your definition of denigrate.
There are no "what do you think it means"? with words, they are all well defined.
P-
And, as if you didn't already know this, words are malleable. Always have been.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by StarrmanThe only problem with your argument is that you are using truth without defining it either. Good for the goose...
What? First you postulate that truth is a necessary condition of integrity and refuse to define truth, then you ask me to define a phrase I use in relation to your use of truth. Get real Freaky, if you can't bring your shizznit to the table, stay at the bar.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI've read back.
I really need a dictionary to understand that denigrate means exactly what I said? I guess I don't follow. Somehow, you have denigrate as meaning something other than what both dictionary and and etymology has it.
And, as if you didn't already know this, words are malleable. Always have been.
Here is the thing I see.
There might be or have been cultures where pedophilia wasn't frowned on. But I don't think that holds on these days many places.
But if you were in such a culture you would still have integrity, pedophilia being the norm.
Starrm should have pointed that out.
P-
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not using truth at all. Consistency is merely a set of parameters or criteria which do not contain contradiction.
The only problem with your argument is that you are using truth without defining it either. Good for the goose...
Is that easy enough to understand? Will you now define truth?
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by PhlabibitBut if you were in such a culture you would still have integrity, pedophilia being the norm.
I've read back.
Here is the thing I see.
There might be or have been cultures where pedophilia wasn't frowned on. But I don't think that holds on these days many places.
But if you were in such a culture you would still have integrity, pedophilia being the norm.
Starrm should have pointed that out.
P-
Sure, in prison maybe. Which is exactly my point. Starrman wants the word defined as simply meaning holding 'true' to a standard--- any standard.
Doesn't work that way.
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by PhlabibitNot really, I'm not suggesting that integrity has a moral value, merely that it relies on consistency.
I've read back.
Here is the thing I see.
There might be or have been cultures where pedophilia wasn't frowned on. But I don't think that holds on these days many places.
But if you were in such a culture you would still have integrity, pedophilia being the norm.
Starrm should have pointed that out.
P-
03 Mar 10
Originally posted by StarrmanWell, if you want to play games, I guess I can humor you for awhile.
I'm not using truth at all. Consistency is merely a set of parameters or criteria which do not contain contradiction.
Is that easy enough to understand? Will you now define truth?
How about this one:
"agreement with reality."