RedFive said:

Jesus dude, just shut up.

I was talking to Mrebo, in his own thread.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really give a crap about anything you say to me, as long you haven't provided a single example of me "confusing opinions with facts".
You basically derailed this thread by posting that flawed google graphic, so you might want to provide some justification for that after 4 pages of nothing, and quit telling people to "shut up" in the meantime.

Thanks.

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:

 

Even explaining the difference between opinion and fact to twooffour becomes a tortured exercise.

Blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (blah blah blah blah blah)

Blah blah blah blah blah blah "blah", blah blah blah blah. :)

This perfectly illustrates your manner of argumentation in which you absolutely misread and misconstrue everything (while being rude).

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah "blah vs blah" blah blah, blah blah blah?

Has my tone been "boring"?

Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah.





Blah blah blah blah, blah blah (Youtube Link of something shitty)

 

^ Everything twooffour has ever said, made into a single post.

I see what you did there.

 

Ziggy Stardust said:

Should I click to see his post?

I'm afraid....

I don't know, but don't click this one.

RedFive said:

twooffour said:

Well I'm still not sure where "reasonably backed up opinions" fit in, so there's only so much I can take from that one.

Opinions.  It fits in with the opinions.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion :

–noun

 

:)

Regardless of the logic involved, a fact is a fact and an opinion is an opinion. You can arrive at an opinion via logic, but it is still an opinion.

:D

It's a sliding scale, basically.

At one end you've got unsupported crankery at its worst.

Somewhere inbetween you have opinions that can go from stupid, to considerable, to very well-supported and almost inarguable. Those opinions can and SHOULD be backed up, and can be stupid or smart, right or wrong, for all intents and purposes.

At the other, proven, backed-up facts (even though even those have different degrees of certainty; like the validity of a paper, or statistic).

Not sure whether you can call logical absolutes "facts", but the rules of logic (like why all the fallacies are fallacies) are pretty much up there as certainties, as well.
So if someone makes a clear logical fallacy in their reasoning, they can be called "wrong" even if they weren't talking about any physical facts supported by statistics or papers.

Basically, an opinion CAN be "promoted" to a fact, or rather, "pretty damn certain knowledge", it just needs good evidence.
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact; weather or medical predictions are "probability statements", or professional opinions, and some shaky, disputable suggestion how to improve one's finances, an opinion.

So that's it in a nutshell.
Obviously, none of that applies to the second main meaning of "opinion" (also in that same dictionary), which is basically personal taste, and can't ever become a "fact".
We may all share similar patterns of perception, to the point that someone can be reasonably called "blind" for not perceiving some kind of beauty - because they probably would have the potential to perceive it just like the other person - but in the end, a sunset isn't "beautiful" except in the mind - it just is.

That's the kind of "opinion" that needs no "backing up", cos it's a "fucking opinion", and can't become an objective fact by definition.

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;

A prediction is not a fact. And that's a fact, not my opinion. But let us not take another 7 pages to fail to convince you on this point.

I'm not sure which terms scientists, or epistemologists use in this context, but yes, in everyday speech, the "fact" that if you jump out of the 9th floor, you'll fall to the ground, and "might" get a headache, is, indeed, a "fact".

Or at the very least a "certainty", which is what this is all about anyway, isn't it?

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;

A prediction is not a fact. And that's a fact, not my opinion. But let us not take another 7 pages to fail to convince you on this point.

I'm not sure which terms scientists, or epistemologists use in this context, but yes, in everyday speech, the "fact" that if you jump out of the 9th floor, you'll fall to the ground, and "might" get a headache, is, indeed, a "fact".

Or at the very least a "certainty", which is what this is all about anyway, isn't it?

Surely you meant ornithologists. But don't ask me about what the fancy scientists say, you're the guy who said:

Yea, sure a pain in the ass to find out that the guy you're trying to spoonfeed with basic, common definitions, actually knows more about them than you do (about those basic, common definitions).

Now if you're asking me for my prediction, it is mighty likely the pencil and leaping man will fall. I assume nobody will be catching them. I assume there will not be a great gust of wind that would carry them to safety. And of course I assume that there is gravity. I have to assume that absolutely nothing intervenes between the pencil/man and gravity. And if we can make such broad assumptions, then any number of probable or even potential events become "facts," but it's all done by sophistry. Now if you're saying it is a fact that gravity will exert force on the pencil, then yes. But you went further than saying gravity exists. It is not a fact that the pencil or man will fall to the ground at all. Just highly likely.

I am serious about not wanting to take 7 more pages to fail to convince you.

That, my friend, is a paragon, a PARAGON, of worthless intellectual masturbation and pointless smartassery.
You shouldn't have said "sophistry" in this post.

Didn't I just say "in everyday conversation"? Do you really think it's necessary to point out that the "certainty" is gravity working, not the object falling to the floor? Like, Chelios from Crank falls, but he survives!
Do you really think when people discuss jumping from a building, they'll find it necessary to point out that they're talking about jumping from a building on Earth, not in space? (Now you're gonna come up with the retarded schizophrenic who wants to jump, and doesn't get that.)

Don't you realize that when people say "if you jump from the 10th floor, you're fucking dead or injured, and that's a fact", they ALSO INCLUDE "in case an eagle or sudden tornado doesn't intervene in your trajectory and smoothly lands you on the grass on top of a nice lady" in their reasoning, but just don't mention it because it's FUCKING STUPID?

What would you think of a guy who'd respond "but that's just your opinion, a dove might fly by" to that, and this while being COMPLETELY SERIOUS? Proceeding to go towards the open window?
Now we all know what you'd think, but you wouldn't want to say it aloud, otherwise he'd probably consider you an arrogant jerk who passes his "opinions about sky-high probabilities" as "facts".



Now when you (or RedFive, or whoever) say I state my opinions as facts, I honestly don't know which kind of opinions, or "facts", you're referring to, or in which instances, but I have all reason to believe that something might've gotten mixed up there, because the only basis I've seen for those accusations would be laconic one-liners like "now you're just wrong" - and it doesn't take something to be a "fact", much less to YOUR astronomic space standards, to be treated as "correct" in relation to something that is, for all intents and purposes, "wrong".

So when I do the nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word "opinion", I have all the reasons in the world to do that.
You're basically just fapping around, after saying you definitely weren't going to.

The issue is that you treat our opinions as facts that can be debunked. Thus you are rude and make nonsensical arguments.

So now I'm going to spend 7 pages explaining to you how opinions, in fact, CAN be debunked?
Because not only facts (or rather, factual claims) can be "debunked", but factual opinions, as well?

And that after explaining this in perfect detail in a previous comment?
But hey, you know, reply to some other part of that comment, and then pretend to not have read the rest.

Make me explain everything all over again. JESUS CHRIST.

I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language.

How about both, since the two are kinda related?
Like, because when someone's accusing me of confusing facts with opinions, and posts shitty flawed google graphics to support that, they're kinda misusing those terms... in the everyday language that is this board?

This isn't some academic forum here, and we're not posting peer reviews.

"Everyday language" is the name of the game here, besides, in everyday language as well as anywhere else, "opinion" can both mean personal taste, and conclusion that lacks hard proof.

In everyday conversation, people will claim all kinds of things are facts. But how about that one man or that one pencil that didn't hit the ground?

As I JUST SAID, such "possibilities" are kinda considered, but NOT MENTIONED.

"The pencil will hit the floor" in everyday conversation = "this pencil will hit the floor unless blah blah blah".
Thanks you finally got that now, thanks.



But hey, where was that opinion that I treated as a "fact"? And I mean not just debunked (you can debunk an illogical opinion, too), I mean as FACTS?
Examples.

*sigh*

Please spend 7 pages doing it. I won't post a thing. We'll just read in awe.

And there goes the overly defensive sarcasm again.
Hey, you DID say, in all seriousness, that opinions CAN'T be debunked.

There's no purpose in acting all sarcastic about it, like "we'll be reading in awe, wink wink, like you had anything to tell us you pompous pervert", when actually, you had made such a crude mistake right before that.
Aside from making yourself look like an insecure douche.

Here's the thing, I'm NOT going to explain anything to you, because I'VE ALREADY DONE IT, and, well, here again for the slow:

And that after explaining this in perfect detail in a previous comment?
But hey, you know, reply to some other part of that comment, and then pretend to not have read the rest.

If you thought something I said there was wrong, you should be either posting a rebuttal, or leave this part of the topic.
Because if I've made my case, and all you do is just contradict (see Monty P) and/or act as if it weren't there and just insist on your position - that an opinion is something that is beyond rebuttal, or being wrong - then well, you fail and I have the highground, even if I was somehow wrong.

Why? Because even if I was wrong, you wouldn't know about it / can't tell where it's wrong / whether something's wrong.
And stubbornly arguing while not even being able to point out your opponent's mistake, now THAT'S just pathetic.

I won't post a thing.

So instead of backing up your accusation by examples, you're just gonna be cocky and sarcastic?
Got it.

Now you're gonna try to turn it around as if my "rudeness" was in question here, instead of "confusing your opinions with facts". So it doesn't seem like you're weaseling out of a challenge that you yourself created... in 3... 2... 1...

All of us who have criticized your rudeness

Well, at least three of them aren't as much wrong, as HYPOCRITICAL, as they've been occasionally more rude to me, than I have been to them (and also have started the conflict to begin with).
Having that said, and having the following said many times, as well, I don't give a crap if someone complains about my "rudeness" (bluntness and some sarcasm is more like it), unless I can see it was somehow uncalled for or inappropriate. And of course, there have to be examples, not just generalized complaints.

Right now, you're being pretty rude and dismissive. Well, dismissive. And cocky without substance.

and lacking coherence are certainly wrong about you.

So there you go, weaseling out of the "opinions" challenge, after having just made a crude mistake about "untouchable opinions", seamlessly jumping to rudeness, and from that to "coherence"... lecturing me on "coherence".

You know what, I'm not even

We're obviously the ones with problems.

Of which some I've just pointed out, described, and provided examples of.

Now I guess this piece of sarcastic brilliance should make me consider to "realize my own problems" based on your empty, chaotic quips.

You should see no reason to take a step back and reevaluate your words.

Well, you're pretty much giving me a reason to think that I have no problems, by REFUSING TO NAME ME SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS AFTER I ASKED, and then acting overly sarcastic and making crude mistakes to cover up for it.

So if I've said a bunch of stupid bullshit somewhere, hey, I've tried, and if I'm now convinced about being correct about everything, it'd probably be your fault for not challenging me (or not even knowing where to challenge me).

When your opponent CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE A REBUTTAL WHEN ASKED, you know you're doing something right.
Or, well, actually no, you don't know that. Only that the other dude is failing so hard, I can't breath from all the hysterical laughter.

You undoubtedly face similar frustrations off the internet where few are as smart as you.

There are actually countless people "on the internet" that are way smarter than I'll ever be.
There sure are some folks here who know much more about movies than I probably ever will.

But not right here, right now.

As for off the internet, I don't remember getting involved in any debates outside my family on occasion.
I'd say I more often have the high ground on stupid philosophical fapping, while the others have the high ground on getting shit done.

But yea, been "pwned" on the internet often enough.

Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth.

An obliviously accurate statement meant as sarcasm - instant unintented irony hilarity awesomecake.
Mm.