Homosexuality is not a sin!

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

I made it all better.

It is still a bit strange, like school kid gossip :+} 

............funny..............

[thormas]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

............funny..............

.......it was intended to be.........

[thormas]

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

In fact, you are yet to establish a case for anything that could actually be substantiated as opposites.

The point is not to substantiate opposites but to seriously respect and consider Joseph's insight and their ramifications. And a back and forth is part of that ongoing process. 

 

[thormas]

17 hours ago, PaulS said:

Your mind is thinking in a very human, black and white concept mode (again, black and whites are not opposites but it is an arbitrary phrase we humans use), which is possibly why it doesn't work for you (currently) that there are no opposites.  Such thinking may have helped us in a fear or flight situation (even then they are not true opposites but one can see where the very human notion of opposites possibly came from in our evolution and development), but to me it seems totally inadequate when trying to understand how one or another views actions.  Just the two phrases above I used demonstrate to me how our human language is loaded with opposites, but when you stop and think about them, they are not actually opposites at all.  

It is not (for me) that there are or are not opposites, it is rather what is man experiencing? And, actually I am thinking in black and white: if Harry thinks black and white (colors) are opposites, how different is that from Sally who says that they are not opposites but points on a continuum, white being the presence or sum of all colors, while black is the absence of all colors. Is the reality the same whether black and white are considered opposites or point on a continuum? If one wants a black car and the other wants a white car, will whether or not black and white are or are not opposites make a difference? 

So too love and hate or self-lessness and selfishness: points on a continuum or opposites? In either case can the man who is selfless and truly caring for others tolerate the truly selfish man whose selfishness causes harm, even great harm to others?  This is the reality that confronts him. Whether or not the good or loving or self-less man thinks the selfish man is the opposite of him or just more selfish or the continuum, he must still oppose his actions if he is selfless, loving and good.

Sure, human language is loaded with opposites yet even if they are not actually opposites - does it matter or how much does it matter?  'Hot and cold' are points on a spectrum but is the reality that confronts man in the arctic different than the reality which meets him in the Florida Keys? Whether he calls it opposites (which most probably do) or understands the language of continuum, and arbitrary points, etc.  - does it matter, will it substantially influence or affect what they wear that day if the arctic is freezing, freaking, 'cold'  and the Keys are hotter than hell?

Opposites may simply be opinion but is reality? Is the arctic not 'cold' in and of itself and also in relation to the Keys? Sure my wife might be less hot than I am in the Keys (she being of Dutch/Spanish  blood with olive skin and me being Irish white) but is she still met by a reality that is different than the arctic? So too, a Hitler groupie on the continuum might have thought that Adolf was a great guy but is the reality that Hitler presents different that the reality presented by France, England or Poland?

We can say the arctic simply is itself, having it's own reality  like a tree in the forest with no one there (to hear it fall) but once man entered the arctic, its reality meets man, and he reacts: he puts more clothes on, builds a fire and seeks shelter. That he names it cold or later expresses an opinion that it is colder than where he came is arbitrary (he could have named it something else and it could have been not as cold as where he came from but he still wears lots of clothes, still has a fire and still has shelter. His is an opinion but it is in reaction to a reality in which he finds himself.

 

The thought process continues............

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

Don't give up hope, Rom!

I am reminded of Dante's quote when dealing with thormas's discussion …. 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here'

[thormas]

53 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am reminded of Dante's quote when dealing with thormas's discussion …........

Well, Rom, first one has to be open to a serious dialogue (although fun/humor is always appreciated, just ask Burl), then one has to actually contribute, i.e. offer something and not merely ask questions or ask others to do the work. And it is also helpful, if in the course of a dialogue, questions are put to you, to either try to respond or present a reason why you won't or can't.

So, going forward, feel free to really contribute as some of us are still actually interested in what you have to say................

 

I, at least so far, am reminded of another Dante when dealing with Rom's non-contribution....." (thy) name is Might-have-been.."   :+}

Edited December 22, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, Rom, first one has to be open to a serious dialogue (although fun/humor is always appreciated, just ask Burl), then one has to actually contribute, i.e. offer something and not merely ask questions or ask others to do the work. And it is also helpful, if in the course of a dialogue, questions are put to you, to either try to respond or present a reason why you won't or can't.

So, going forward, feel free to really contribute as some of us are still actually interested in what you have to say................

I was really interested in how you may have answered Rom's question about heat, but of course you didn't see fit to honour his question.  Not particularly helpful in the course of a conversation I would have thought.

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, thormas said:

It is not (for me) that there are or are not opposites, it is rather what is man experiencing? And, actually I am thinking in black and white: if Harry thinks black and white (colors) are opposites, how different is that from Sally who says that they are not opposites but points on a continuum, white being the presence or sum of all colors, while black is the absence of all colors. Is the reality the same whether black and white are considered opposites or point on a continuum? If one wants a black car and the other wants a white car, will whether or not black and white are or are not opposites make a difference? 

You say opposites are not for you but then you also say "As for 'opposites:' love and no love", which seems to be you providing an example that opposites do exist.

So in moving forward, do you think opposites exist or not?

Quote

So too love and hate or self-lessness and selfishness: points on a continuum or opposites? In either case can the man who is selfless and truly caring for others tolerate the truly selfish man whose selfishness causes harm, even great harm to others?  This is the reality that confronts him. Whether or not the good or loving or self-less man thinks the selfish man is the opposite of him or just more selfish or the continuum, he must still oppose his actions if he is selfless, loving and good.

At what degree does tolerance versus non-tolerance exist?  It is all subjective.  Opinion.

Quote

Sure, human language is loaded with opposites yet even if they are not actually opposites - does it matter or how much does it matter?  'Hot and cold' are points on a spectrum but is the reality that confronts man in the arctic different than the reality which meets him in the Florida Keys? Whether he calls it opposites (which most probably do) or understands the language of continuum, and arbitrary points, etc.  - does it matter, will it substantially influence or affect what they wear that day if the arctic is freezing, freaking, 'cold'  and the Keys are hotter than hell?

I think it does matter when one is judging right from wrong.  Joseph has demonstrated how such a view can only be subjective and arbitrary, not a set point on a continuum that one can point to and say that is exactly where it sits on a scale.  Hot and cold are NOT points on a spectrum, they are words that many (i.e. a lot of) people use differently to sometimes describe the same point on a spectrum, as Joseph made clear with the example of he and his wife considering their air-conditioning.  Same point on the spectrum to to speak (degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius) yet two entirely different opinions about the same point.  It is subjective.  Opinion.  One is not wrong and the other right.  

Quote

Opposites may simply be opinion but is reality? Is the arctic not 'cold' in and of itself and also in relation to the Keys? Sure my wife might be less hot than I am in the Keys (she being of Dutch/Spanish  blood with olive skin and me being Irish white) but is she still met by a reality that is different than the arctic? So too, a Hitler groupie on the continuum might have thought that Adolf was a great guy but is the reality that Hitler presents different that the reality presented by France, England or Poland?

You example of Hitler makes a good example of 'reality' - it is a subjective experience.  The 'reality' of one thinking Hitler is evil and one thinking he is a great guy, is subjective.  Different opinions about the same thing.  There is no singular reality that is the 'right' one.

Quote

We can say the arctic simply is itself, having it's own reality  like a tree in the forest with no one there (to hear it fall) but once man entered the arctic, its reality meets man, and he reacts: he puts more clothes on, builds a fire and seeks shelter. That he names it cold or later expresses an opinion that it is colder than where he came is arbitrary (he could have named it something else and it could have been not as cold as where he came from but he still wears lots of clothes, still has a fire and still has shelter. His is an opinion but it is in reaction to a reality in which he finds himself.

How that reality seems to the one experiencing it, is subjective.  I think you mistake 'reality' with thinking it can only mean one thing, when it fact it can mean many (i.e a lot of) different things to many (i.e. a lot of) different people based on their own personal subjectivity.

 

[romansh]

20 minutes ago, PaulS said:

You example of Hitler makes a good example of 'reality' - it is a subjective experience.  The 'reality' of one thinking Hitler is evil and one thinking he is a great guy, is subjective.  Different opinions about the same thing.  There is no singular reality that is the 'right' one.

I must admit I don't buy into this post modernist relativism subjectivism business. 

We don't think ,say,  the influenza outbreak of 1918/19 as evil. Today we see it as undesirable but in relatively neutral terms. We don't ascribe a malignant intent to this flu. Yet with people we seem not be able to do otherwise than ascribe a malignancy to phenomena like Hitler.

The virus could not do otherwise, yet we seem to believe Hitler whose constituents and the behaviour of his constituents/substrate are more less identical could do otherwise.

So I think it is plain nonsense to think of one arrangement of molecules as sinful and another as not, even on a subjective basis. This concept of sin/good/evil should be dumped.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I was really interested in how you may have answered Rom's question about heat, but of course you didn't see fit to honour his question.  Not particularly helpful in the course of a conversation I would have thought.

You really need to read more carefully: I said, "(when) questions are put to you .....either try to respond or present a reason why you won't or can't."

Rom's post was referencing a direct Joseph quote on heat and I said that. I also said it was simply one example among many and I was (and still am) actually interested in the gist of Joseph's point.

BTW, I also gave my honest reason for not detailing my experience in the earlier topic on the thread because I did not believe it was relevant to being able to discuss it and evaluate it. So, I did what I suggested others do ;+}

Also in an earlier post, when told that I didn't answer questions, I said: '..........I didn't previously answer them because simply I asked first and I was waiting on you"  And I believe I answered them all.

So in all cases I did honor the dialogue - try to respond to a question or present a reason why you won't or can't - by explaining why I did or did not do what I did or did not. 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I must admit I don't buy into this post modernist relativism subjectivism business. 

We don't think ,say,  the influenza outbreak of 1918/19 as evil. Today we see it as undesirable but in relatively neutral terms. We don't ascribe a malignant intent to this flu. Yet with people we seem not be able to do otherwise than ascribe a malignancy to phenomena like Hitler.

The virus could not do otherwise, yet we seem to believe Hitler whose constituents and the behaviour of his constituents/substrate are more less identical could do otherwise.

So I think it is plain nonsense to think of one arrangement of molecules as sinful and another as not, even on a subjective basis. This concept of sin/good/evil should be dumped.

I agree that the 1918 outbreak had no malignant intent but some still refer to AIDS or ebola or 1918 (or to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, etc,) as 'natural evil' - not because of any intent but because of the destructive effects on human beings. Sure if you weren't hit by a 'natural disaster' or didn't have a loved one who succumbed to a disease, you might not give it much thought, you might count yourself lucky or you might empathize with those suffering. 

People are different, there is intentionality. Whether or not they are fully responsible for their decisions is one thing but it is different in kind than a "natural evil."

That you consider it nonsense is yours to do.

Edited December 23, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

50 minutes ago, thormas said:

 but some still refer to AIDS or ebola or 1918 (or to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, etc,) as 'natural evil' -

Some people refer to these as acts of God

Some people see God in everything and play hopeless word games saying God is love and by logical extension tornadoes,  fires etc are God too.

Speaking as someone who has lost their son to debilitating epilepsy, I have thought about it. 

Of course the people that do believe in acts of God, natural evil (what is an unnatural evil?) or plain old evil, loving gods, sin etc cannot help themselves. But that is OK; it cannot be otherwise in the moment. 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

You say opposites are not for you but then you also say "As for 'opposites:' love and no love", which seems to be you providing an example that opposites do exist.

I said "It is not that there are or are not opposites." And I said: love and hate............ points on a continuum or opposites?" I was posing a question (although at times if I use the word opposites it is simply everyday language). As for your question, I have answered: it is not whether there are opposites or points/degrees on a continuum (or opinions) - it is about the reality that confronts man. 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

At what degree does tolerance versus non-tolerance exist?  It is all subjective.  Opinion.

Is it just a question of degree? Is it all subjective? Man is the subject who is confronted or met by reality but is it only his opinion that serial murder or bullying is wrong? If the bully thinks he is right, is he right? How about the girl who was bullied, who didn't think it was right yet who was 'adversely' impacted and afraid of men? Who is right, is there a right or is it only opinion?

 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

At what degree does tolerance versus non-tolerance exist?  It is all subjective.  Opinion.

Well that's enough for now, time for a movie as we approach the eve of Christmas Eve. But to honor the dialogue I will not be answering anything until I read the rest of your comment and reply or not. 

[thormas]

8 minutes ago, romansh said:

Some people refer to these as acts of God

Some people see God in everything and play hopeless word games saying God is love and by logical extension tornadoes,  fires etc are God too.

Speaking as someone who has lost their son to debilitating epilepsy, I have thought about it. 

Of course the people that do believe in acts of God, natural evil (what is an unnatural evil?) or plain old evil, loving gods, sin etc cannot help themselves. But that is OK; it cannot be otherwise in the moment. 

They do and I don't agree with them.

I think God is in all and conversely that all is in God (but all is not God and God is not all) and I also believe/accept that to say God is love is a significant insight into what we call God - but also a statement of belief as are all other statements about God. However, I do not accept that God is nor does God create tornadoes, fires, etc.

I think they (some?) can help themselves and have changed those views.  I have no idea what unnatural evil is.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

You really need to read more carefully: I said, "(when) questions are put to you .....either try to respond or present a reason why you won't or can't."

Rom's post was referencing a direct Joseph quote on heat and I said that. I also said it was simply one example among many and I was (and still am) actually interested in the gist of Joseph's point.

Thormas, Rom asked you a question which you refused to answer, even further when I suggested you were misreading Rom.  Rom was asking YOUR opinion on heat - he was asking YOU what YOU thought of it.  It may be one example of many but he was interested in how YOU understood heat.  You chose not to honor his request - that's your choice, but you can't justify your refusal to answer by saying YOU decided it wasn't relevant.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

BTW, I also gave my honest reason for not detailing my experience in the earlier topic on the thread because I did not believe it was relevant to being able to discuss it and evaluate it. So, I did what I suggested others do ;+}

I never doubted your honesty, have I?.  I think experience is exceptionally relevant, particularly when one who has had the experience can counter somebody else's negative view of it being 'wrong' even though they themselves have never experienced it being 'right'.  My point being, if you think me speaking from experience has less credibility than you speaking form your lack of experience in a matter, so be it.  That is your opinion.

Still, you refused to answer Rom's question even when it was pointed out to you that he was asking for YOUR understanding of something.  Not to worry.

Quote

Also in an earlier post, when told that I didn't answer questions, I said: '..........I didn't previously answer them because simply I asked first and I was waiting on you"  And I believe I answered them all.

This is where I think YOU need to read a little more carefully and just see how many question have been asked of you which you haven't answered.  That's your call, but your are mistaken if you think you answered them all.  I'm not going to do the work for you, but if you re-read the thread it will be obvious to you how many you have overlooked when it suits you.  But my point isn't that we need to extensively answer every sentence that has a question mark during a written conversation  (most of us don't have the time to sit in front of the screen for hours) - but neither should we pretend one of us is 'right' and everybody else is doing it 'wrong'.

Quote

So in all cases I did honor the dialogue - try to respond to a question or present a reason why you won't or can't - by explaining why I did or did not do what I did or did not. 

It seems important to you that you are 'right', so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[PaulS]

41 minutes ago, thormas said:

I said "It is not that there are or are not opposites." And I said: love and hate............ points on a continuum or opposites?" I was posing a question (although at times if I use the word opposites it is simply everyday language). As for your question, I have answered: it is not whether there are opposites or points/degrees on a continuum (or opinions) - it is about the reality that confronts man. 

So when you say - "As for 'opposites:' love and no love", - you are saying these are not opposites but somehow asking a question (without a question mark)?

41 minutes ago, thormas said:

Is it just a question of degree? Is it all subjective? Man is the subject who is confronted or met by reality but is it only his opinion that serial murder or bullying is wrong? If the bully thinks he is right, is he right? How about the girl who was bullied, who didn't think it was right yet who was 'adversely' impacted and afraid of men? Who is right, is there a right or is it only opinion?

What is reality?  Your reality is clearly different to mine.  All reality is different to somebody.  There is no singular reality and it is an illusion to pretend there is.  The question of degree depends on who is asking it and how they see it - their opinion.  Yes, it is all very much subjective.  You and I may have an opinion that bullying or murder is wrong, but at other times we may think differently of bullying and murder (if somebody had murdered Hitler earlier on in the war would you have been as upset?).  It is all subjective.  Good for the girl who marched against bullying men - tomorrow the men may be marching against a bullying woman.  It is all subjective subject to time, place, circumstance, opinion, cultural views, etc.  There is no point on any scale that you can say is 'the' point.  Well you can, if your mind thinks in opposites and absolutes such as right &wrong, love & no-love, good & evil, etc.

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

This concept of sin/good/evil should be dumped.

I certainly agree with that.

[thormas]

40 minutes ago, PaulS said:

......................YOUR ...................... YOU ..................YOU ..............................YOU  

......................YOU .......................

Commercial break from the movie.............

 

Good lord, you do SHOUT a lot in these posts -  you're such an angry guy. 

All has been asked and answered. You simply don't like the answers.

Do leave it there since it seems more important to you than everybody else - and I'm sure everyone will be grateful :+{

Edited December 23, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

11 minutes ago, thormas said:

Commercial break from the movie.............

 

Good lord, you do SHOUT a lot in these posts -  you're such an angry guy. 

All has been asked and answered. You simply don't like the answers.

Do leave it there since it seems more important to you than everybody else - and I'm sure everyone will be grateful :+{

Not meaning to shout and I'm certainly not being angry - I am just trying to highlight the subject matter as you seem to keep overlooking it.  It is about your view that you were being asked for (no highlights on the word you this time).

If you think you've answered Rom's question about how you understand heat, then so be it.  I don't think you have answered the actually question, but it's not that important to me (enter next dig from Thormas here).

Perhaps others will be grateful if I didn't post.  Perhaps others would be grateful if you didn't obfuscate and avoid.  But your reality is your reality.

Merry Xmas Thormas - hope you enjoy your movie (PS - relax and enjoy the movie with your family rather than jumping back on here during commercial breaks.  I won't be back for a couple of days).

[thormas]

Not overlooking anything, not avoiding and not obfuscating: I have not answered Rom's question for the reasons given.

[thormas]

18 hours ago, PaulS said:

What is reality?  Your reality is clearly different to mine.  All reality is different to somebody.  There is no singular reality and it is an illusion to pretend there is.  

Reality is what will freeze you to death (if you are unprotected) regardless of your opinion. If it is, for example, -80 degrees F in the arctic and you are naked, no shelter and no fire or other such sources, whether it feels like -84 to you and -78 to your companion, the reality that you are confronted by will kill you. 

Try it. If your reality is clearly different you will survive (in the above conditions) and you might actually like it and decide to move there.

BTW, if you acknowledge that there are different realities and that reality is different for all, why are you trying so hard to establish that my reality is wrong? After all, according to you 'there is no singular reality.' Yet you seem to act as if there is and...........it's yours!

 

I at least have an excuse: I think you're wrong ;+}

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, thormas said:

Reality is what will freeze you to death (if you are unprotected) regardless of your opinion. If it is, for example, -80 degrees F in the arctic and you are naked, no shelter and no fire or other such sources, whether it feels like -84 to you and -78 to your companion, the reality that you are confronted by will kill you. 

Try it. If your reality is clearly different you will survive (in the above conditions) and you might actually like it and decide to move there.

BTW, if you acknowledge that there are different realities and that reality is different for all, why are you trying so hard to establish that my reality is wrong? After all, according to you 'there is no singular reality.' Yet you seem to act as if there is and...........it's yours!

I at least have an excuse: I think you're wrong ;+}

If you think that I am trying hard to establish that your reality is wrong, it is because it is you who thinks that, not me (another example of different individual realities over the same matter).  I have never said your reality is wrong - to the contrary - I have said things like "Your reality is your reality", "All reality is different to somebody" and "There is no singular reality and it is an illusion to pretend there is".  So I am even recognizing that my reality is just that - MY reality (not shouting or being angry, just highlighting the focus of the word my so as not to confuse it with yours).

Even with the example you provide of the supposed reality of freezing to death - it is a different reality for different people.  Body composition and size can make a difference to the time it may take to freeze, one person's body may shut down differently to another, some may even survive this cold depending on the period of exposure (i.e. two people could have the same exposure but one lives and one dies).  There is simply not a simple 'one size fits all - no ifs or buts' reality.  Even in the simple, dramatic example you cite, once one starts digging into it it is clear that it is not a single, simple reality that suits everybody, every time.  And then there's quantum theory and reality, but I think that'd have to be for another thread.

And of course the differences to 'reality' only become more and more pronounced when we start taking into account non-physical influences such as beliefs, culture, religion, sin, self-actualization, opposites, etc.  These 'realities' are much more complicated than somebody dying due to a certain temperature exposure and duration.  Which in my reality, seems pretty important when people are prepared to judge and condemn another's actions as 'wrong' because of what 'they' perceive as THE only possible reality. Again, not shouting or being angry - just highlighting to differentiate.

[thormas]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

If you think that I am trying hard to establish that your reality is wrong, it is because it is you who thinks that, not me ...... I have said things like "Your reality is your reality", "All reality is different to somebody" and "There is no singular reality and it is an illusion to pretend there is".  So I am even recognizing that my reality is just that - MY reality (not shouting or being angry, just highlighting the focus of the word my so as not to confuse it with yours).

Paul,  

Rather than recriminations, I'm simply saying there are far-reaching and unavoidable implications (intended or not) when you state that another's position is an example of a 'different individual reality' when you know s/he believes there is only one Reality. By the mere fact that you say their position is such an example, you have said (implied) they are wrong, i.e. that their position or belief is an illusion, pretending there is a singular reality, when it is actually just a individual reality. Even if you say you are not saying they're wrong, to characterize their position in that way is to dismiss their reality  - in favor of yours. And how could this not be the case, you are convinced yours is correct and there is no singular reality. 

This makes the point that such statements, by you or anyone else, of necessity* are a judgment (intended or not) and they set up an opposition. Furthermore, you can't say you are just expressing your reality: even inadvertently, a judgment is rendered on another's position (about reality) - no matter what they say, theirs is only an illusion. Of necessity, the obvious implication is that since another, any other, who doesn't accept that there is not a singular reality is pretending or unaware it is an illusion.......and, therefore, wrong.

 

*I think this is the very nature of and the necessary consequence of your position. 

 

****  Do me a favor: rather than ask questions and/or take each line I have written and comment on it, instead, as I have tried to do, write your position and explain it, explain how what I have said is not the necessary consequence, not a judgment, etc. and the very nature of your position and where I am wrong, if you think I am wrong.

 

[thormas]

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

Even with the example you provide of the supposed reality of freezing to death - it is a different reality for different people.  Body composition and size can make a difference to the time it may take to freeze, one person's body may shut down differently to another, some may even survive this cold depending on the period of exposure (i.e. two people could have the same exposure but one lives and one dies).  There is simply not a simple 'one size fits all - no ifs or buts' reality.  Even in the simple, dramatic example you cite, once one starts digging into it it is clear that it is not a single, simple reality that suits everybody, every time.  And then there's quantum theory and reality, but I think that'd have to be for another thread.

It is not a different reality given the conditions I presented.  Sure body composition and size can delay death but given no clothes, no shelter or no heart source, death is inevitable in these unending conditions. For the purpose of this discussion, the conditions I set are it and they are unending - there is no different period of exposure, no hope of rescue. I used these parameters to show that reality impacts the individual. I have no problem allowing for differences under changing conditions but in all cases, if it is freezing cold and one (all) are unprepared (as detailed above), reality will kick your butt no matter how different your reality is from the guy next to you.

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by thormas

[JosephM]

Thomas ,

To me, in your last 2 posts you make a case for the dangers of opposites even if that may not be your intention. I say this because your position admittedly interprets different views oon reality as pointing out or implying the other is wrong when that is the problem with unconsciously using those terms. Each person places their view on a continuum as a point at which the other is called wrong and the point they have chosen is right. Those are 2 different realities in their minds and were created by the use of opposites. 

Thomas also said ..... "Reality is what will freeze you to death (if you are unprotected) regardless of your opinion. If it is, for example, -80 degrees F in the arctic and you are naked, no shelter and no fire or other such sources, whether it feels like -84 to you and -78 to your companion, the reality that you are confronted by will kill you. "

While i would agree with the example you gave using the temperature and parameters you gave earlier that the most likely scenario (reality) would be physical death for a normal human being, i would not be so absolute about it and at the same time not care to try and attempt to improve on science 😊   .  That was not a reality you expressed by opposites but actual temperatures on the continuum of heat according to science which is more precise than the use of a so called opposite. However,  keep in mind an alien might have a different physiology than us humans and might not perish which would be a different reality for them in the same scenario.  And to further complicate things ... Here is an interesting human that puts holes in what many people consider reality for humans.     Click Here ------->  Wim “Iceman” Hof