Opinions, such as “all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy” are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can’t even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.
Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.
“Blasphemy” is not really something I would consider a term that’s commonly used to express subjective opinions.
That’s because words on their own all have definitions. The subjectivity is created contextually. I swear it feels like I’m talking to a bot.
No need to get insulting, ma nude. Still not sure in what world your statement could be regarded as subjective in intend. Please, enlighten me.
Opinions, such as “all methods of decaffeinating coffee are blasphemy” are subjective in their very nature. What makes this more obvious is that the definition of blasphemy is entirely subjective and can’t even begin to be assessed objectively until at very minimum a religious dogma is declared for the basis of evaluation.
I disagree. IMHO, the accusation of blasphemy presupposes a dogma to actually make sense.
Okay… Which one? It’s pretty clear that decaffeinated coffee violates no religions that I’m aware of… And in fact for some religions would be the only allowable way to drink coffee. And if you argue that I just meant in general that it is a slight on to any God then how would you interpret that as anything other than humor or sarcasm?
Do you always feel like a victim or is it just when you aren’t caffeinated enough?
… Any dogma? It’s like the claim “that’s illegal” presupposes a body of law. No matter which one.
That’s not how legal systems work… Plenty of things are legal in one place and illegal in another. No Christians are worried about blasphemy against Zeus or Jupiter. Like wise a Zoroastrian is only concerned about blasphemy against Ahura Mazda and not Allah.
I’m claiming that the accusation or blasphemy presupposes a frame or reference. In this frame of reference, you can make objective statements. Not that this frame of reference is absolute.
In your line o reasoning, velocity would be subjective.