Why i write true sentences ...

About: this post on Facebook


Now you're going to laugh.  I'm going to reveal a pretty googie thing about the mush between my ears ...  so stay tuned, it will be salacious, ... but first let's talk about some serious stuff about which we all should be able to agree.  

It is easier to remember the truth because it doesn't change.  But a lie which is arbitrarily contrived to meet the requirements of events will inevitably change as the situation changes.  There is nothing that we can consult to retrieve our lies, instead we need to rely on our memory.  Yet we can always retrieve the truth from our reality itself. 

Ok, ok, i'm glad we got that out of the way ... now let's get to the good stuff ...  

I can't remember shit. 

Never really could.  As i get older and older it becomes harder and harder.  Perhaps i am going senile ... perhaps it is just the natural aging process ... but whatever it is, it means that i must struggle to maintain a coherent train of thought.  Frequently i have only a glimmer of what i want to say before i start talking.  I only realize the consequences of my train of thought, when i can read it back to myself in my own words.  Then, and only then, can i actually see my thought.  Then it will stay still.  Then and only then can i go back over it, checking it's validity, and improving it  until it will maintain its accurate match to my reality. 

There you have it ... my shameful little secret ... giggle away ! 

... but do any of you out there do that too?

Tags

  1. truth
  2. true sentences
  3. item 16378
  4. honesty
  5. lies
  6. aabe

Comments


Mark de LA says
& is exactly the thing I identified!

Mark de LA says
P.S. You do remember shit!

Seth says
MR 2013-01-10 13:04:25 16378
seth 2013-01-10 12:07:05 16378
MR 2013-01-10 11:08:48 16378
seth 2013-01-10 10:48:33 16378
MR 2013-01-10 10:43:01 16378
Consistency is not necessarily the truth - except within your own self. 
Ralph Waldo Emerson: ... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
...


"Consistency is not necessarily the truth - [not even] within my own self. " ... is a better truth.
Hmmm... not better, just different. At best, consistency represents the truth to you, but doesn't imply that outside your self that you write really true sentences.


My sentence is better to me, because yours did not match my reality.  When my thoughts are more consistent, i have found that they may actually be less true to other people.  When i discovered that, i was surprised ... but there it was .

But, yes, when i can consistently read some words and think:  these words match the reality in which i find myself, then i call the words true.   Everybody finds different realities so my words will obviously not match all of them.  I do the best i can, that is all any of us can do in this predicament. 

I still don't really know what you are trying to tell me.
That's because you isolate our worlds & realities.

Well that is the predicament in which I find *myself*.  If you are in an un-isolated reality, that is the predicament in which you find *yourself*.   Your words only describe your predicament and not mine ... in other words, they are true to you, and not necessarily to me.   My description of the situation still applies. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-13 20:56:57 16378
MR 2013-01-13 09:24:41 16378
seth 2013-01-12 10:42:34 16378
MR 2013-01-11 07:29:14 16378
& is exactly the thing I identified!
Well yes, we successfully communicate precisely to make our realities more similar.  The more similar, the more what is true to me, is also true to you.    But that does not alter the observation that what is true to me, is not *necessarily* true to you ... rather it motivates our successful communication so that it will be.
OTOH, I suspect you have introduced an idea called "successful communication" which is unlikely to occur using your model.


"Unlikely", perhaps ... real "successful communication" is far less likely than many presume given how different we are inside.  Yet happen it does ... witness the stunningly marvelous accomplishments of our species, none of which would have been possible without successful communication.  Perhaps, when it comes right down to it, we share more reality and are given to more cooperation than "your model" would actually predict.
I explain it differently, that's why it works! I don't use your model.

Mark de LA says
I'm assuming you meant relative rather than relevant; the latter makes no sense.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-14 20:37:29 16378
MR 2013-01-14 17:54:25 16378
seth 2013-01-14 15:51:18 16378
MR 2013-01-14 15:18:58 16378
seth 2013-01-14 13:45:19 16378
MR 2013-01-14 13:27:03 16378
My use of the word disagree was perfect! You can start there!

To me it seems you have answered a different question ... one that i did not ask ... and you have used a word that is so ambiguous that i do not know how to guess its meaning to you in this context.  So i have no idea, whether you have observed this or not.  In other words, no communication has happened here.
Simply put you have your answer. I answered your question.

Well if you honestly believe that you answered my question ... then this is a case in point ... because i honestly believe that you did not.  I think you avoided answering the question to further your own agenda.
That you show you are smug, "", in the process implies to me that you are just playing RWG.
Well, it proves my point.  You're not worth spending time on this one with anymore - wrap it or shove it - I don't care.

Indicates to me that you cannot handle truth ... because the closer I get to telling you my truth ... the more you respond like a juvenile.
You continue ad hominem is what causes me to treat you in like manner - way to go. You might get your English in order and re-read what I wrote. Instead, you are ignoring my answer & trying to bully an answer that you want out of me.  That may work for politics or in a debating forum but not with me. That's why I lose interest.


Seth says
MR 2013-01-14 10:10:02 16378
seth 2013-01-14 07:27:33 16378
source: Mark above
I explain it differently, that's why it works! I don't use your model.
Well i'm not so very sure that it is a model ... rather it is an observation. 

Have you not also observed that:  what is true to me, is not *necessarily* true to you  ? 

Have you not also observed that:  despite that, frequently we do successfully communicate ?
A lot of the communication is dual monologues maybe what I would call duologues talking around the subject, but not really grocking eachother on the subject or on each other. We do have a context & distinction of other whether we like it or not. It probably first crops up when we suck on our mother's tit.

Well all that is certainly true.  Duologues happen where people and groups, other to each other, follow their own agendas with no intention of communicating.  And, guess what , no successful communication happens in those cases. 

But, getting back to my question ... have you also observed that what seems true to you, does not also necessarily seem true to me ?   <- a non rhetorical question, the answer to which i really would like to know ... irrespective of winning or loosing this dialogue.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-14 20:51:59 16378
MR 2013-01-14 11:35:32 16378
seth 2013-01-14 11:20:10 16378
It is interesting to compare the situation that we have in the domain or politics, religion, and even society and economics to the situation that actually obtains in the domain of mathematics.

What is true to one mathematician is supposed to be necessarily true to another mathematician.  Where that is not the case, it can be proven that one of the mathematicians is wrong.
Mathematics is an art & a language. It often takes years to prove something like Fermat's last theorem. The surrounding baggage of the current proof was not even around when Fermat wrote his theorem or suggestion in the margin of a book. (legend?). Obviously Fermat had a simpler proof.  Math has no hurry in it. Politics & economics & religion does.  Of what value to daily lives was Fermat's last theorem? (except perhaps GW's)

Well it is true that politics carries with it an urgency that is not normally found in mathematics.  But there are other subjects which also have no urgency just like mathematics, philosophy comes to mind.   So i don't think that urgency ("hurry") is the salient difference.  Mathematics is unique as subjects go in its connection to truth.  Mathematical truth is *not* relevant to the observer.  Pondering that fact might give us some hint of what is being explored here.
You're close - but it is truth that is not relative to the observer.

Seth says
MR 2013-01-14 11:17:20 16378
seth 2013-01-14 11:14:45 16378
MR 2013-01-14 10:10:02 16378
seth 2013-01-14 07:27:33 16378
source: Mark above
I explain it differently, that's why it works! I don't use your model.
Well i'm not so very sure that it is a model ... rather it is an observation. 

Have you not also observed that:  what is true to me, is not *necessarily* true to you  ? 

Have you not also observed that:  despite that, frequently we do successfully communicate ?
A lot of the communication is dual monologues maybe what I would call duologues talking around the subject, but not really grocking eachother on the subject or on each other. We do have a context & distinction of other whether we like it or not. It probably first crops up when we suck on our mother's tit.

Well all that is certainly true.  Duologues happen where people and groups, other to each other, follow their own agendas with no intention of communicating.  And, guess what , no successful communication happens in those cases. 

But, getting back to my question ... have you also observed that what seems true to you, does not also necessarily seem true to me ?   <- a non rhetorical question, the answer to which i really would like to know ... irrespective of winning or loosing this dialogue.
Do you follow anyone else's agendae but your own? If so you are more Zen about self than I am!
Yep, Seth, we disagree often! Not a

The problem i have with your response is that the word "disagree" can stand for two totally different kinds of things ... on the one hand it stands for disagreements where one must disagree or their agenda will be harmed ... in other words disagreement for the sake on argument or the rwg.  But that kind of disagreement was not what i was asking you about ... and yes it is not a surprise.  

I'm asking: whether there are times where you actually think a thing is true, and you observe that i actually think that *same* thing is not true?   Note there are obviously times where it is not clear that  each of us are talking about the very same thing.  Those are not the cases that my question is about. 

Seth says
MR 2013-01-14 11:35:32 16378
seth 2013-01-14 11:20:10 16378
It is interesting to compare the situation that we have in the domain or politics, religion, and even society and economics to the situation that actually obtains in the domain of mathematics.

What is true to one mathematician is supposed to be necessarily true to another mathematician.  Where that is not the case, it can be proven that one of the mathematicians is wrong.
Mathematics is an art & a language. It often takes years to prove something like Fermat's last theorem. The surrounding baggage of the current proof was not even around when Fermat wrote his theorem or suggestion in the margin of a book. (legend?). Obviously Fermat had a simpler proof.  Math has no hurry in it. Politics & economics & religion does.  Of what value to daily lives was Fermat's last theorem? (except perhaps GW's)

Well it is true that politics carries with it an urgency that is not normally found in mathematics.  But there are other subjects which also have no urgency just like mathematics, philosophy comes to mind.   So i don't think that urgency ("hurry") is the salient difference.  Mathematics is unique as subjects go in its connection to truth.  Mathematical truth is *not* relevant to the observer.  Pondering that fact might give us some hint of what is being explored here.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-15 08:57:36 16378
MR 2013-01-15 07:06:08 16378
seth 2013-01-15 07:02:12 16378
MR 2013-01-14 23:12:38 16378
I'm assuming you meant relative rather than relevant; the latter makes no sense.

Yep, sorry, i should have said:

"mathematical truth is not relative to the observer."

source: However, you claim

it is "truth that is not relative to the observer."

Well, is reality relative to the observer?
You would have to define clearly what you mean by reality, eh? RS describes it as a point of view of philosophy opposite to the ideal.

Reality is what you experience.  It is the actual experience itself.

Note that I experience what I experience, you experience what you experience.  Those two experiences are not the same thing.   Truth is merely how you describe your experiences in thoughts and words.  If reality is relative to who experiences it ... and it is ... then so is the truth of how that person describes it in words. 
I say what you experience is in most cases not reality at all but a mixture of what is going on with your beliefs & even limits at exposing your self to what reality would be if you grokked it.
You have basically defined reality as your own walled garden.


Seth says
MR 2013-01-15 07:06:08 16378
seth 2013-01-15 07:02:12 16378
MR 2013-01-14 23:12:38 16378
I'm assuming you meant relative rather than relevant; the latter makes no sense.

Yep, sorry, i should have said:

"mathematical truth is not relative to the observer."

source: However, you claim

it is "truth that is not relative to the observer."

Well, is reality relative to the observer?
You would have to define clearly what you mean by reality, eh? RS describes it as a point of view of philosophy opposite to the ideal.

Reality is what you experience.  It is the actual experience itself.

Note that I experience what I experience, you experience what you experience.  Those two experiences are not the same thing.   Truth is merely how you describe your experiences in thoughts and words.  If reality is relative to who experiences it ... and it is ... then so is the truth of how that person describes it in words. 

Seth says
MR 2013-01-15 09:03:39 16378
seth 2013-01-15 08:57:36 16378
MR 2013-01-15 07:06:08 16378
seth 2013-01-15 07:02:12 16378
MR 2013-01-14 23:12:38 16378
I'm assuming you meant relative rather than relevant; the latter makes no sense.

Yep, sorry, i should have said:

"mathematical truth is not relative to the observer."

source: However, you claim

it is "truth that is not relative to the observer."

Well, is reality relative to the observer?
You would have to define clearly what you mean by reality, eh? RS describes it as a point of view of philosophy opposite to the ideal.

Reality is what you experience.  It is the actual experience itself.

Note that I experience what I experience, you experience what you experience.  Those two experiences are not the same thing.   Truth is merely how you describe your experiences in thoughts and words.  If reality is relative to who experiences it ... and it is ... then so is the truth of how that person describes it in words. 
I say what you experience is in most cases not reality at all but a mixture of what is going on with your beliefs & even limits at exposing your self to what reality would be if you grokked it.
You have basically defined reality as your own walled garden.



"Yes", when you develop skills and obtain knowledge your reality changes.   For, as you say, "reality is a mixture of what is going on and your beliefs". Obtain other skills and obtain other knowledge and it will change yet again to some other reality.  Meditation and astral projection are just such developments ...  so is mathematics and climate science.   The perdicament, however, is still that there is no single reality which can (and/or should) be designated as "the reality".  But sure, if you want, you can (and probably should) judge different realities ... some are better than others.

For me, your "objection" does not change the predicament.  We are still all in the same boat, each within our perhaps chosen realities.

Seth says
MR 2013-01-16 09:00:17 16378
Ponder this that your reality is an extract of something that we all can acknowledge as real & that is the Earth. Unless you want to travel down some solipsistic notion that everything not of Seth is your own creation your perception alone should tell you that the Earth is real. Stuff is going on & most of that is what we call life. How you interpret that stuff is your own cut of reality, but if you look a bit closer there is a lot that is not in dispute & is shared by other humans. We need to be able to separate what's so from what is imaginary & personal. If you can't get beyond the Earth exists then enjoy your walled garden.


I think you are talking about what is commonly called "consensus reality".   There is no doubt that groups of people, organizations, disciplines, and even whole cultures share and agree on many assumptions.  Joining such a consensus frequently involves a process by which a new member must prove that they accept the axioms and presumptions of the consensus. 

No we are not alone in our minds nor in some "solipsistic" situation unless we actually choose that as our personal axiom.   Don't paint me in that box ... I don't like the feel of it.  My life has been all about finding and perceiving otherness ... perhaps you didn't notice.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-17 11:40:07 16378
MR 2013-01-16 09:00:17 16378
Ponder this that your reality is an extract of something that we all can acknowledge as real & that is the Earth. Unless you want to travel down some solipsistic notion that everything not of Seth is your own creation your perception alone should tell you that the Earth is real. Stuff is going on & most of that is what we call life. How you interpret that stuff is your own cut of reality, but if you look a bit closer there is a lot that is not in dispute & is shared by other humans. We need to be able to separate what's so from what is imaginary & personal. If you can't get beyond the Earth exists then enjoy your walled garden.


I think you are talking about what is commonly called "consensus reality".   There is no doubt that groups of people, organizations, disciplines, and even whole cultures share and agree on many assumptions.  Joining such a consensus frequently involves a process by which a new member must prove that they accept the axioms and presumptions of the consensus. 

No we are not alone in our minds nor in some "solipsistic" situation unless we actually choose that as our personal axiom.   Don't paint me in that box ... I don't like the feel of it.  My life has been all about finding and perceiving otherness ... perhaps you didn't notice.
No axioms & suppositions - the Earth exists & anyone who can communicate & uses the word Earth knows where it is. Solipsism is alternative personal reality  possibility that fits an ultimate walled garden. I assumed you don't believe that one. I don't put the Earth in a consensus reality because I don't need you to agree that it's there to know its there. It's kinda like an absolute truth.


Seth says
MR 2013-01-17 12:30:42 16378
seth 2013-01-17 11:40:07 16378
MR 2013-01-16 09:00:17 16378
Ponder this that your reality is an extract of something that we all can acknowledge as real & that is the Earth. Unless you want to travel down some solipsistic notion that everything not of Seth is your own creation your perception alone should tell you that the Earth is real. Stuff is going on & most of that is what we call life. How you interpret that stuff is your own cut of reality, but if you look a bit closer there is a lot that is not in dispute & is shared by other humans. We need to be able to separate what's so from what is imaginary & personal. If you can't get beyond the Earth exists then enjoy your walled garden.


I think you are talking about what is commonly called "consensus reality".   There is no doubt that groups of people, organizations, disciplines, and even whole cultures share and agree on many assumptions.  Joining such a consensus frequently involves a process by which a new member must prove that they accept the axioms and presumptions of the consensus. 

No we are not alone in our minds nor in some "solipsistic" situation unless we actually choose that as our personal axiom.   Don't paint me in that box ... I don't like the feel of it.  My life has been all about finding and perceiving otherness ... perhaps you didn't notice.
No axioms & suppositions - the Earth exists & anyone who can communicate & uses the word Earth knows where it is. Solipsism is alternative personal reality  possibility that fits an ultimate walled garden. I assumed you don't believe that one. I don't put the Earth in a consensus reality because I don't need you to agree that it's there to know its there. It's kinda like an absolute truth.


Well what the Earth is is certainly a matter of human opinion.  In the 10th century it was not even a globe ... and what it is to a pigmy in the forest or an American Indian, is certainly not the same thing as it is to a stock broker working in the concrete jungle of Wall Street .... and what it is to a mosquito or a intelligent alien being is vastly different than our common human "consensus experiences" of it.  Some people even assume that the Earth is mere illusion.  There are no absolute conceptions of the Earth that always present to me at all.  I don't get your point.

Right, you don't need me to agree .  "Consensus reality" and "personal reality" are not fabrics that carry with them the requirement of a transactional agreement between people or even awareness that one's mind even knows the presumed axioms.  All you need are to go through the common experiences and/or to learn the presumptions ... and surprise, surprise ... the reality emerges.  Again you are on some completely other track here which appears to me designed intentionally not to intersect with mine.

Seth says
MR 2013-01-17 17:13:46 16378
The SUN is! That's the truth!

To a cave dweller or an nocturnal animal, "The SUN is not".  That is their truth!  Yours, however, is a better truth.  There is no "the truth".   To me the ones which are true to a larger and more diverse audience are better ... the larger the audience the more its diversity, the better.  But then that may be just me,  others seem to have one particular audience which they favor above all others.

Seth says
MR 2013-01-17 15:04:05 16378
Wrong:
Well what the Earth is is certainly a matter of human opinion.
Right:
The Earth IS! It is independent of your thoughts, your concepts, pygmies in the forest etc.

When you don't agree or understand what I talk about you accuse me of off topic.  Way to go to learn outside your walled garden.


Yep, the Earth is independent of my thoughts ... but all that i know of about it come from my experience and my beliefs.   I do believe that the Earth is independent of my thoughts just like i believe that a tree falls in the forest whether i am there to see it or not.  But that is just something that i surmise and assume from common sense ... that is pretty much part of our "consensus reality".  The existential independence of the Earth from my thoughts, does not change the fact that:  the truth of everything i think or say about the Earth necessarily is relative to my beliefs and my experience of it ... not your's ... not Obama's ... and certainly not any entity that might be called God.  We are all in that same perdicament ... none of us hav a preferred experience or set of beliefs about the Earth ... but we can certainly say some are better than others.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-18 04:47:40 16378
MR 2013-01-17 17:13:46 16378
The SUN is! That's the truth!

To a cave dweller or an nocturnal animal, "The SUN is not".  That is their truth!  Yours, however, is a better truth.  There is no "the truth".   To me the ones which are true to a larger and more diverse audience are better ... the larger the audience the more its diversity, the better.  But then that may be just me,  others seem to have one particular audience which they favor above all others.
Yep you keep repeating that stand. Perhaps you might inquire into why you like that theory of knowledge or epistemology.  I'm speculating that it is a self thingy. It certainly functions that way because you never have to agree with what someone else says is true & can be the authority on just about every judgement you make on your own. Furthermore, you can argue about just anything without having to be clear or provide proof. Finally, it gives you a self which is able to reject the past & in particular your past which lightens any responsibility for what you might have done in the past which you feel bad about. As an afterthought, it seems to support your rejection of your father & some/all parts of his works.
No real truth is probably where a leftist/anarchist would land politically, imho.
Feel free to reject some/all of this as just my truth - I'm just speculating.



Seth says
To think about what is and what happens, you only have your own experience and knowledge to consult ... nothing more.  

When you gain access privileges to "The Truth" please send me the password .... via a secure channel, of course  .

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-01-19 07:02:10 16378
To think about what is and what happens, you only have your own experience and knowledge to consult ... nothing more.  

When you gain access privileges to "The Truth" please send me the password .... via a secure channel, of course  .
That's your own imposed limitation - you don't need it & I don't care if you restrict yourself with it. Enjoy!


Seth says
MR 2013-01-19 07:06:19 16378
seth 2013-01-19 07:02:10 16378
To think about what is and what happens, you only have your own experience and knowledge to consult ... nothing more.  

When you gain access privileges to "The Truth" please send me the password .... via a secure channel, of course  .
That's your own imposed limitation - you don't need it & I don't care if you restrict yourself with it. Enjoy!


Do you have access to "The Truth" beyond your own experience and knowledge ?  If not, you are telling me a lie.

Seth says

source: me in the body of this item

Frequently i have only a glimmer of what i want to say before i start talking.  I only realize the consequences of my train of thought, when i can read it back to myself in my own words.  Then, and only then, can i actually see my thought.  Then it will stay still.  Then and only then can i go back over it, checking it's validity, and improving it  until it will maintain its accurate match to my reality. 
well this is obviously a case of AABE.  What is it also in relation to "I go with what happens" ?

See Also

  1. Thought Events underdetermine Truth with 406 viewings related by tag "truth".
  2. Thought Love - Lying with 282 viewings related by tag "lies".
  3. Thought nathan's distinction between authentic and honest with 160 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  4. Thought Agreements are vunerable to lies with 126 viewings related by tag "lies".
  5. Thought Consciousness as "transactional relative relivance" reares it's ugly head for the first time here with 89 viewings related by tag "truth".
  6. Thought rationalizing telling lies with 75 viewings related by tag "lies".
  7. Thought The Oath of Truth with 64 viewings related by tag "truth".
  8. Thought Fox Guarding the Hen House with 54 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  9. Thought Writing Voice with 50 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  10. Thought Representing something changes my awareness of it with 42 viewings related by tag "true sentences".
  11. Thought Generalizing what "a lie" means to me with 39 viewings related by tag "truth".
  12. Thought about: Special Counsel Collusion - comment 82936 with 34 viewings related by tag "truth".
  13. Thought Yet another FoHammer siteing at the FBI today with 33 viewings related by tag "truth".
  14. Thought Ass Hole with 32 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  15. Thought Oath of Truth with 32 viewings related by tag "truth".
  16. Thought Truth with 17 viewings related by tag "truth".
  17. Thought Leading to cheat ! with 16 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  18. Thought Decentralizing Truth with 13 viewings related by tag "truth".
  19. Thought Energy? What is it? with 8 viewings related by tag "truth".
  20. Thought How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision. with 7 viewings related by tag "truth".
  21. Thought Well with this new fluidity, what is the big deal ... with 7 viewings related by tag "lies".
  22. Thought about: The Illiative Sense with 6 viewings related by tag "truth".
  23. Thought FOR SALE! with 6 viewings related by tag "true sentences".
  24. Thought President Trump's Interview With TIME on Truth and Falsehoods with 6 viewings related by tag "truth".
  25. Thought Logicide - Political Correctness -Big Lies & more with 5 viewings related by tag "lies".
  26. Thought BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS with 4 viewings related by tag "truth".
  27. Thought A Better Truth with 3 viewings related by tag "truth".
  28. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 3 viewings related by tag "truth".
  29. Thought edges with 2 viewings related by tag "truth".
  30. Thought I go with what happens with 2 viewings related by tag "truth".
  31. Thought The Conversation About Truth & Context with 2 viewings related by tag "truth".
  32. Thought Seth's ideas about a world where truth is not binary with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  33. Thought Lies with 1 viewings related by tag "lies".
  34. Thought Of Ego Trips & the Last Refuge - (Adolfz Result) with 1 viewings related by tag "lies".
  35. Thought Recontextualisation - an Example with 1 viewings related by tag "lies".
  36. Thought Belief with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  37. Thought Mark likes to scramble words ... with 1 viewings related by tag "lies".
  38. Thought Ego vs Egoo with 1 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  39. Thought My truth, your truth with 1 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  40. Thought Truth with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  41. Thought The Abyss with 1 viewings related by tag "truth".
  42. Thought Electioneering vs Truth & Substance with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".
  43. Thought Honesty with 0 viewings related by tag "honesty".
  44. Thought AINT it the Truth? with 0 viewings related by tag "lies".
  45. Thought Characterization with 0 viewings related by tag "lies".
  46. Thought For those with children! with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".
  47. Thought Logic is great, Survival is better! with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".
  48. Thought about: donald trump wont apologize to ben carson over religion comments with 0 viewings related by tag "aabe".
  49. Thought bozo unvindicated with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".
  50. Thought Truth & Science with 0 viewings related by tag "truth".