Thought for Today
The donkey told the tiger, "The grass is blue." The tiger replied, "No, the grass is green ."
The discussion became heated, and the two decided to submit the issue to arbitration, so they approached the lion.
As they approached the lion on his throne, the donkey started screaming: ′′Your Highness, isn't it true that the grass is blue?"
The lion replied: "If you believe it is true, the grass is blue."
The donkey rushed forward and continued: ′′The tiger disagrees with me, contradicts me and annoys me. Please punish him."
The king then declared: ′′The tiger will be punished with 3 days of silence."
The donkey jumped with joy and went on his way, content and repeating ′′The grass is blue, the grass is blue..."
The tiger asked the lion, "Your Majesty, why have you punished me, after all, the grass is green?"
The lion replied, ′′You've known and seen the grass is green."
The tiger asked, ′′So why do you punish me?" The lion replied, "That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is degrading for a brave, intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with an ass, and on top of that, you came and bothered me with that question just to validate something you already knew was true!"
The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn't care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on discussions that make no sense. There are people who, for all the evidence presented to them, do not have the ability to understand. Others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and the only thing that they want is to be right even if they aren’t.
When IGNORANCE SCREAMS, intelligence moves on.
So you are going to argue that entire cultures seeing traffic lights as red, yellow, and blue are wrong?
How do you know that you are not wrong? Is this determined simply by the people around you? Is it determined by the size/power of your culture?
The only grass that’s blue is country music
Give an example of this.
Most cultures agree and recognize the existence basic colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. This is demonstrated by the existence of equivalent words in the languages of these cultures.
However, cultures don't agree on where the dividing line between these colors is. So if you had a spectrum printed out on a strip of paper, and you asked people around the world where green ends and blue begins, you would find a variety of different color boundaries.
This is often cited in discussions about whether language changes how we see the world or whether language is a reflection of the world we see.
Some cultures, usually considered primitive, do not recognize or distinguish as many colors as English speakers and many other cultures. Russians actually have one additional color - what we would call dark blue and light blue they consider two distinct colors as different as red and orange.
If I am remembering correctly, there was a native group in the USA that didn't make a distinction between yellow and orange, so if you held up color chips and asked them to identify the different colors, they would screw up in distinguishing between these two colors. More interestingly, as they learned English, they became more proficient at distinguishing the two colors, and this proficiency correlated with their English language ability.
Sometimes things that we might assume to be universally true are only true within our own context.
How is right and wrong (truth) determined?
It seems there are only three options for determining truth:
Truth is determined by a transcendent source (e.g. laws of math for mathematical truth, divine for spiritual/moral truth.
Truth is determined by a small group of elites (e.g. the vaxx is safe and effective, mostly peaceful protests)
We each determine what is true for ourselves (which is actually a false choice - just try this in the face of those pushing option #2.
Much of the fight today is actually not about whether the grass is green or blue. That is largely irrelevant. The real fight is about the ultimate source for truth.
Didn't want to jump the gun and assume, but it does appear your argument is language based.
The problem is, the color is still objective. There are only so many wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum. The classifications are irrelevant. Words are made up to represent reality. Whether you call it a different color, shade, or anything else, everyone will see orange and yellow as different. They don't physically see the colors as the same, even if they classify them as such.
The source of this truth is observational. Anyone who actually isn't color-blind (i.e. can't physically differentiate between shades no matter how it's explained) can for themselves observe that a lemon and an orange are different. How they classify that may change, but the observation doesn't. It's not up to opinion, and it isn't up to the elites.
If you look on a graph of the color spectrum and place 2 dots, those are always going to be different "colors". Anyone whose eyes are not damaged or adversely affected in some way will perceive those differences. How they classify it is a contrivance of language. They can SEE the difference.