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.
Should I click to see his post?
I'm afraid....
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
twooffour said:
Ziggy Stardust said:
Should I click to see his post?
I'm afraid....
I don't know, but don't click this one.
Okay, I won't.
Wait...
twooffour said:
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 :
–noun1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
:)
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
Forgive me, your intellect is far beyond mine and I think I am having a hard time keeping up. Are you pointing out that "reasonably backed up opinions" don't fit into the above quoted dictionary definition of "opinion"? And that if there is logic involved, an opinion can sometimes be fact?
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.
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.
The blue elephant in the room.
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?
twooffour said:Sounds like someone has never been in space.
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;
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.
The blue elephant in the room.
TV's Frink said:
twooffour said:Sounds like someone has never been in space.
Making a prediction that if I let go of my pencil, it'll drop to the floor, is a fact;
If you ask me, sounds like someone has xD
The blue elephant in the room.
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.
A paragon, a PARAGON, you say?
I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language. You're not doing a "nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word 'opinion,'" you're confusing the definitions.
The issue is that you treat our opinions as facts that can be debunked. Thus you are rude and make nonsensical arguments.
When people try to explain opinion vs fact, you devolve into a discussion about everyday meanings of dropping pencils. And the "intellectual masturbation" is important in establishing a basic concept. There will often be many variables involved in a situation which you cannot assume do not exist or may not think of. 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? Not because they were caught by a dove, but by some reasonable but unforeseen circumstance.
The blue elephant in the room.
The issue is that you treat our opinions as facts that can be debunked. Thus you are rude and make nonsensical arguments.
I thought we were talking about the difference between opinions and facts, not talking about how people might misuse those terms in everyday language.
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?
*thinks about engaging twooffour in debate, but declines*
*sigh*
Warbler, twooffour doesn't debate, he INFORMS.
Please spend 7 pages doing it. I won't post a thing. We'll just read in awe. All of us who have criticized your rudeness and lacking coherence are certainly wrong about you. We're obviously the ones with problems. You should see no reason to take a step back and reevaluate your words. You undoubtedly face similar frustrations off the internet where few are as smart as you. Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth. No one is quite as dynamic and open-minded as you.
The blue elephant in the room.
I am a little upset that twooffour gets so many replies when my all-encompassing solution to this issue has not been addressed ;)
BTW (I haven't read all 7 pages, so don't crucify me, if someone else stated this):
Star Trek (2009) isn't a remake. It's a sequel. It concludes all the TV-Shows with a timetravel leading into an alternate reality.
Hmm, sounds really poor. But it's a really good movie and the best Paramount could have done with the almost dead franchise.
Please spend 7 pages doing it. I won't post a thing. We'll just read in awe.
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.
I won't post a thing.
All of us who have criticized your rudeness
and lacking coherence are certainly wrong about you.
We're obviously the ones with problems.
You should see no reason to take a step back and reevaluate your words.
You undoubtedly face similar frustrations off the internet where few are as smart as you.
Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth.
TK-949 said:
BTW (I haven't read all 7 pages, so don't crucify me, if someone else stated this):
Star Trek (2009) isn't a remake. It's a sequel. It concludes all the TV-Shows with a timetravel leading into an alternate reality.
Hmm, sounds really poor. But it's a really good movie and the best Paramount could have done with the almost dead franchise.
Sorta, but it doesn't really conclude anything from the old continuity, as they only show Spock after he's already gone through the black hole.
So more like a prequel set in an alternate reality :D
Or, it's a reboot. Or a reimagining of a reboot. I love the Plinkett reivew :D
