m-theory

So Hilary forced her to stack the DNC in her favor, or bribed her or something?

I am still not sure how it is Hilary who is responsible for the cheating?

So your claiming the DNC cheated and Sanders would have won more delegates than Hilary if the DNC had been truly impartial?

Yes but Hilary had more delegates than Sanders, how did she cheat to get them?

I am not sure how it is cheating though? Why is it cheating if the DNC supports the candidate they believe is stronger?

As long as you are not implying that truth is not contingent upon facts I have no issues.

Cheated?

Well I don't agree that Hilary is at the same spot on the spectrum as Trump. I did not intend to say that Trump is as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but giv...

I think we do agree on at least the point that truth value is contingent upon the facts. That is basically what my position is as well.

If Trump was a fascist would his supporters be able to tell? Hitler was definitely a fascist but the people in his party saw that as a strength. I wou...

Have a good day then.

Then we actually agree. Truth value is contingent on facts.

Yes, if the truth of the statement "all truths are subjective" is contingent on objective facts. What does that imply about what truth is contingent u...

So if it was not an empirical fact that "all truths are subjective" what consequences would this have on the statement?

So "all truths are subjective" is contingent on empirical facts, that is your position?

Prove it.

No it would be the same in that we could say that all x are y refers to an objective fact.

Let me try again Presumably there is some reason or argument which demonstrates that "All truths are subjective' is an objective fact. My position is ...

This does not make any sense to me, I have no idea what you are asking?

I did answer. Presumably you understand why your claim refers to an objective fact. The same applies to all x are y

I was agreeing with you. You said it was unfortunate. You can read the post as "yes it is unfortunate"

Sorry you believe I have an attitude. I have been clear about what I am saying.

Yeah that is too bad.

This should answer any questions you have. I am saying that "All x are y" refers to an objective fact in exactly the same way that "All truth is subje...

On my view "all x are y" refers to an objective fact in the same way that "all truths are subjective" refers to an objective fact.

Then that is what I am saying as well.

Are you saying that subjective is a property of truth?

sure but I am not saying that x and y are the same thing just like you are not saying that truth and subjective are the same thing

sure

it is referring to x

Can you prove that the sentence does not refer to an objective fact?

All x are y is a sentence that refers to the objective fact.

You asked what the sentence all x are y refers to, I am saying it refers to a the objective fact.

That all x are y.

No it is referring to the objective fact.

It is referring to the objective fact that all x are y.

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/43104

ah thanks

That doesn't explain why it is not an objective fact that all x are y. Prove that all x are y is not an objective fact.

I would say that philosophy is a much broader subject than religion. I would say that all religions are a part of philosophy.

A reply to your own post buttons, so you can hyperlink things you have already wrote?

Shucks I don't know. You are just funny, that's all.

But you said it was a valid form for an objective fact. Why should it not be an objective fact?

I have already plugged in the variables. x and y. Is it an objective fact that all x are y?

lol

So is it an objective fact or not?

Do you agree. "All x are y" This is not an objective fact is it? It does not correspond to anything objective.

"All x are y" Is not an objective fact.

I get what you are saying. You are saying that the term "truth" and the term "subjective" mean the same thing, but that is not an objective fact

forgot what I said