nutrimat
Of course, if it's decontextualised. But it stands as an objectively recognised "truth" within the context of the game we know and love (arbitrarily drafted though those laws may be).
Rules within the game may be broken (and addressed, or not, by the ref at the time), but the actual laws that dictate how a game "should" be conducted govern what is "meant" by various events that take place within a game. A ref. makes his judgements during the game, but regardless of whether they are deemed "good" or "bad" decisions by the witnesses, at the end of the game the result is deemed to be final; a "truth" of outcome, which becomes objectively recognised as "fact" within the context of the competition. The act of reaching the result may be "imperfect" in as far as witnesses all have different perceptions of the event -- some may agree with a given decision, some may not -- but the result itself is a perfect "truth" (but only because we choose to define football this way within our actuality). I think you'll probably agree with this -- as I said before, we sometimes seem to be arguing across each other.
Au contraire! The more you understand, the more you become aware of how "life" may be constructed, the more relevant it becomes to perception of everyday experience. Of course, it becomes a constant battle to stay "sane".... ;-)
That's because "it" pervades everything, or rather, it "creates" everything. Discussion can be contextually anchored (to culturally accepted convention, for example), though it's useful to acknowledge the arbitrary nature of so doing.
Those who fail to question the nature of their reality are forever destined to live in the servitude of those who dared to ask...
You think I want an eyeball full of sand? I might be crazy but I ain't stupid ;-) You gotta listen to the sandman, dare to dream!
Nope, not "the absolute truth", since such a thing is an illusion.. a truth in terms of our discourse, maybe.
If you argue that there is no truth so you can discount "everything" I say on that basis, then you would be discounting my buttertion that there is no absolute truth; in which case, you'd actually need to change your argument to reflect that there is, indeed, an absolute truth, by virtue of the fact you'd discounted my buttertion that there was not. So therefore, you'd be unable to use this mechanism to escape my arguments -- as you couldn't support the buttertion that there is "no truth" to begin with.
call me traditional... 3651dope man Lots of people agree. Indeed, not caring is becoming quite the thing-to-do amongst leaders of footballing fashion, from what I've heard and read over the past few years. Until, that is...
You're trying to entrap me with binary opposition... but it only works if you buy into that particular narrative ;-)
Truth ain't bipolar, and comes in many forms; the truth, no truth, your truth, some truth, a truth, black truth, grey truth, white truth, my truth, absolute truth, Universal truth, relative truth, and fecking great lies, to name but a few.
"Misinterpretation" is merely interpretation which doesn't happen to fit in accordance with your truth.
Cheat, as defined by whose rules? :)
Depends on context, as I've been saying aaalllllll along. Within the context of a football game, the result reflects "the truth" of the outcome in accordance with the laws we have defined to govern that game.
Chelsea messageboard on 25th may 3649nutrimat It defines "normal conversation", and creates the reality about which we converse. That's kinda fundamental. Although, I agree that many people are just happy to just exist inside their own particular bubble. Nope, I...
Ooops, we're all out of burgers. Can I interest you in a smoked whelk?
-- Dan
