and these people vote?

That's "bear" not "bar". You're lost. Wrong thread RAZD.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

"Davy Crocket killed him a bar when he was only 3 ..." we have this from "other knowledge" so it needs to be considered on an equal footing to the lack of scientific information.But I like to put my right arm on bars too. It's my thread, and its about people with non-aligned walking-sticks* ... especially ones that bear your right arm ...* - non-compass mantisEdited by RAZD, : ftnote

Experiences are inherently subjective. You experience ice cream in a different way than I do. There may be some overlap in our experiences, which could possibly be called an objective component, but the overall experience is subjective.Two people parachute out of an airplane. One is exhilarated and can't wait to go again. The other is terrified and vows, "Never again." The events are objective. The experience of the events is subjective. I would use the same criterion that I used in the case of the recovered coma patient: the ability to communicate one's experiences to the class. No matter how boring Hillary was, he might still be able to communicate better than a two-year-old, though not as well as Mr. Smith.Of course, the ability to communicate one's experiences has nothing to do with the "quality" of the experiences.

If you want to continue arguing that the experiences of a two-year-old toddler person CAN be just as rewarding as a person who climbed Everest, be my Percy's guest.Seeya in our next debate ringo.

You're too arrogant and immature to accept that you made a bad argument.

What part of "subjective" do you not understand?Obviously the two-year-old toddler's experiences will be more rewarding to the toddler than somebody else's experiences.You personally can not assign absolute values to other people's experiences.

*chuckle*What part of "objective" do you not understand? *more chuckle*And yet people do assign comparative and objective values . . . successfully . . . all the time . . . whether out on a date, during long interview sessions, or just using minimal common sense to make a simple choice between a two-year-old toddler and a world class alpinist for a speaking engagement about exploration.I have no doubt that EVERY school history teacher in the world would answer in a millisecond my following question, WITHOUT needing to add silly variables to the proposition such as a two-year-old toddler possessing extraordinary public speaking skills . . . :

quote:

---

You are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently resurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year-old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCES, which do you choose?

---

Yeah, I don't doubt that just taking a dump in a diaper would probably be a crowning achievement and an indubitably rewarding experience, . . . for a two-year-old.But if you want to equivocate and argue that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep or rewarding as summiting Mount Everest, then I can only say your skills of objective discrimination are sorely lacking.Edited by dronester, : is>are, singular>plural

You're going to have to explain how people's individual experiences can be objective. Those values are not objective. You should doubt more. Skepticism is a good thing. To the child, yes, it is more rewarding.

Hmmm, . . . seems like you're projecting.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how individual experiences can be objective.

Really, my witty retort gave you no chuckle? That would kill in the Poconos. Oni, help me out here.[Dronester shruggs] Allright . . . One of the definitions for 'objective' is nonpartisan. So IF there are no varying stances or differing opinions to an experience, THAN we can conclude that an evaluation to an experience is objective. How can anything be subjective if we ALL think the same way? Thus my proposition . . .

quote:

---

You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

Based on their experiences, which do you choose?

---

Unless you desperately pry another silly qualifier into the mix, you know there is only one answer. The question confirms objectivity.

But we don't all think the same way. That's the whole point. We don't all think climbing Mount Everest would be a wonderful experience. I, personally, would rather be talking to that granny on the bus.In your proposition there is no way to compare Hillary's "quality of experience" with the two-year-old's "quality of experience". The two-year-old would most likely be miserable every inch of the way up Mount Everest.You are equivocating, either intentionally or unintentionally, the experience of the students with the experience of Hillary and/or Smith. What we are talking about here is the experience, not the second-hand description of the experience. (And I have already pointed out that the description of a mundane experience might well be more interesting than the description of an earth-shattering experience.)

Wow, after so many posts, YOU are arguing whether or not climbing Everest is a wonderful experience? Is that what you really think my argument is about? Sheesh, my argument IS about the objective comparison of similar experiences, . . . here it is for the fourth (?) time:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

My proposition (and other previous examples) was meant to show that we DO all (nearly all) think the same way about certain things. THAT'S the whole point. I have no doubt, I am quite confident, based on the experience, WITHOUT the need to add ANY other qualifier, 99.99% of teachers would easily choose Hillary as the speaker:

quote:

---

You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

Based on their experiences, which do you choose?

---

Huh? "intentionally or unintentionally" And the experience of the students is hardly the main consideration in my proposition. Huh??? Huh? When Hillary describes his experience, you believe it to be a "SECOND-hand description" Huh???Ringo, I think the gaslight is still turned on, and I am getting woozy.

But that's nonsense. There's more than one flavour of ice cream because we don't all think the same. It's second-hand to the children. You can not compare how the children will react to second-hand experiences. Each child will have his own favorite flavour of ice cream. Each child will have different interests in guest speakers. Some might be interested in hearing about mountain-climbing and some might be interested in hearing about bus trips.You are equivocating the having of an experience, which the OP is talking about, with the hearing about somebody else's experience.In both cases, you are wrong. Different people will have different reactions to the same event, whether it's a first-hand event or a second-hand event.

Yes, that may be true regarding the SAME exact event, I don't know why you keep bringing this off-topic up, we already confirmed agreement with that off-topic a dozen posts ago. Please focus Ringo, here is my actual argument again:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

*Chuckle.* Again, I am arguing about COMPARATIVE objective experiences . . .Would a person choose:1. vanilla ice creamor2. dog-crap ice cream with broken glass shards (Baskin-Robbins unsuccessful 32nd flavor) ?Would a person rather breath:1. clean mountain airor2. dense sewer gas inside an animal rendering plant surrounded by a sulfer mineAgain, unless you desperately add contrivances, 99.99% would choose #1 for both propositions. Thus it confirms: for CERTAIN experiences, we DO all/nearly-all think the same. I am arguing for the rule. You have desperately argued for contrived exceptions. *Chuckle,* Nonsense. Re-re-read my actual argument instead of fabricating one for me:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

My argument is about COMPARATIVE objective experiences. Like my breathing and ice-cream examples above, and other life experiences elsewhere in the thread, the following simple proposition clearly demonstrates that one experience is more valuable/preferred/enlightening than the other:

quote:

---

You (Ringo) are a school history teacher. You want the kids to study famous explorers this week. You have the opportunity to get one of two people to give a speech to the class. One of them is recently ressurrected Sir Edmund Percival Hillary, first man to summit Everest. The other option is a two-year old toddler named Jane Smith.

​

BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCES, which do you choose?

---

The simple answer to this clear proposition (to which you have strenuously avoided answering by continually inventing and moving goal posts) supports my argument:

quote:

---

a 'traveler' will almost always have a deeper experience climbing Everest than a 'tourist' who will bus to the BOTTOM of Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a television-watcher who is watching a travel program about Everest, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a child playing with Everest-shaped-jacks, who will almost always have a deeper experience than a comatose person who may or may not have fleeting active brains waves of Everest.

---

If you want to equivocate and argue that taking a crap in one's pants is an entirely subjective experience that CAN be just as deep/enlightening/rewarding/valuable as summiting Mount Everest, WITHOUT ADDING MORE QUALIFIERS such as "to a two-year-old," then be my guest.