Is there ANYTHING that everyone can agree on?

[figsfiggyfigs]

That we all die eventually.

 

[The Outsider]

sigh

 

[Turtledove]

But we can all agree that we will all have disagreements with someone some time in the future...except kids...kids don't understand.

 

[The Outsider]

No, we can not. A person incapable of making judgment calls can not agree to anything, a person may disagree with your assessment that he is going to have disagreements with someone some time in the future if he decides to commit suicide that very moment or to live the rest of his life as a hermit, etc.

 

[Qlip]

I think people here are underestimating the amount of delusion that can be required to live, which is hilarious because some of it is being showcased simultaenously.

 

[Oaky]

Let us all agree that someone who judges this statement will either agree or disagree to it.

 

[Qlip]

Let us all agree that someone who judges this statement will either agree or disagree to it.

Mu. I'm a follower of the middle path.

EDIT: If I have to achieve Zen so I can disagree with your statement, I will damn it.

 

[Oaky]

Mu. I'm a follower of the middle path.

Judging to neither agree nor disagree is always a nice option with my given statement. I was going to have it edited to add 'partially agree' and 'partially disagree' but I agreed with my hopes. Scale is always a given.

 

[Qlip]

Judging to neither agree nor disagree is always a nice option with my given statement. I was going to have it edited to add 'partially agree' and 'partially disagree' but I agreed with my hopes.

Whew.. I'm glad I jumped in first. I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge...

 

[violet_crown]

I just don't see why this question matters.

 

[Oaky]

Whew.. I'm glad I jumped in first. I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge...

Oh, always so much fun. A new challenge for another time then.

 

[The Outsider]

Let us all agree that someone who judges this statement will either agree or disagree to it.

This statement is a bit misleading as it is built up from two sentences, one of which is a tautology whereas the other appears to be contingent on the truth-value of the first one, which I don't think is exactly the case.

While it is true that everyone who judges the statement does indeed agree or disagree with it when the only two possible judgments are either agreement or disagreement, it is still possible to disagree with the stronger assertion that everybody ought to agree with the whole sentence. Take a person who only understands the fist half of the sentence and takes the second half to mean some nonsense; such a person can still make a judgment about the sentence and disagree with it and while it does strengthen the assertion to a third person who observes that upon judging the statement, the judger did indeed do one of the two things - they disagreed with it, it still doesn't change that it is in fact possible to disagree with it.

 

[Qlip]

This statement is a bit misleading as it is built up from two sentences, one of which is a tautology whereas the other appears to be contingent on the truth-value of the first one, which I don't think is exactly the case.

While it is true that everyone who judges the statement does indeed agree or disagree with it when the only two possible judgments are either agreement or disagreement, it is still possible to disagree with the stronger assertion that everybody ought to agree with the whole sentence. Take a person who only understands the fist half of the sentence and takes the second half to mean some nonsense; such a person can still make a judgment about the sentence and disagree with it and while it does strengthen the assertion to a third person who observes that upon judging the statement, the judger did indeed do one of the two things - they disagreed with it, it still doesn't change that it is in fact possible to disagree with it.

Straight on. I can catagorically claim disagree with everything [MENTION=6071]Oakysage[/MENTION] says from here on out. The precludes me from even attempting to acertain the validity of a statement, or even bother reading it. (Hah! Preemptive decisive strike!)

 

[The Outsider]

Straight on. I can catagorically claim disagree with everything [MENTION=6071]Oakysage[/MENTION] says from here on out. The precludes me from even attempting to acertain the validity of a statement, or even bother reading it. (Hah! Preemptive decisive strike!)

And that's why I think this question leads to a more general question about the nature of knowledge. To have a meaningful discussion on this subject, one would have to put strict restrictions on what it means to disagree with an assertion, something like the necessity of understanding the precise meaning of the assertion and the possibility and will to participate in an act of judgment that precludes the possibility of any other judgment than agreement and disagreement, which would all necessitate that a person is in an acceptable mental state and possesses enough relevant knowledge; all while strict restrictions like that seem to undermine the whole point of everyone being able to agree on something and risks leading to some logically empty statement like 'everyone who has the right mental stuff to agree with this and this statement has to agree with this and this statement, otherwise they don't have the right mental stuff'.

 

[Oaky]

This statement is a bit misleading as it is built up from two sentences, one of which is a tautology whereas the other appears to be contingent on the truth-value of the first one, which I don't think is exactly the case.

While it is true that everyone who judges the statement does indeed agree or disagree with it when the only two possible judgments are either agreement or disagreement, it is still possible to disagree with the stronger assertion that everybody ought to agree with the whole sentence. Take a person who only understands the fist half of the sentence and takes the second half to mean some nonsense; such a person can still make a judgment about the sentence and disagree with it and while it does strengthen the assertion to a third person who observes that upon judging the statement, the judger did indeed do one of the two things - they disagreed with it, it still doesn't change that it is in fact possible to disagree with it.

Yes, of course. Though perhaps you have many ways of dealing with the played situation. Assuming everyone who had read my statement understood it in its supposed context. Would they be able to inherently disagree with it in truth after purposely doing so? One would have to take an underlying belief of criteria that certain truth is inherently false so that what they understand as truth is believed to be false (to them). This is not stating much of a point other than to re-instate my question in hypothetical perception which I suppose is not necessarily being done here.
So let us all either agree, disagree or take a middle stance upon whether someone would be able to agree, disagree or take a middle stance upon judgement of these statements.

 

[Anew Leaf]

That we all die eventually.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wand'rest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to Time thou grow'st.
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

:lemonade:

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

The car is the best guy to be in Monopoly.

 

[strawberries]

The car is the best guy to be in Monopoly.

nooo, i like the hat!

 

[Eric B]

That gravity pulls you down. (The one readily "provable" thing)

 

[Wolfie]

Beyonce is hawt.