twooffour said:
So how about you don't claim that about Jordan, but about some noob kid in the neighborhouse... it'll still be an opinion, but what chance would it stand at being any true?
I'm pretty sure you could make a very solid CASE for Jordan, though.
It is funny you used the neighborhood kid example, because I almost used that as my subjective opinion example, but figured the cat worked better (since the kid could potentially turn out to be the best ever, but "cutest cat" is something that can't be quantified).
But yeah, statistics and records exist to act as a basis for an opinion about Micheal Jordan being "the best ever". But my opinion about the neighborhood boy being potentially the best ever would be purely my subjective view based on my own thought from watching him play with other kids who probably aren't that good. If the neighborhood kid had beaten Micheal Jordan during his prime in a one-on-one match, then now I would have something objective to base my opinion on.
In that sense, if I take something that passes for an opinion, not fact, and say "that's false"... am I automatically wrong for being that way?
Or would you first have to show that that "opinion" was, either a subjective opinion, or actually pretty damn well supported in contrary to what I'm saying? Or if not pretty damn well, at least makes enough sense not to be indisputably "false"?
You'd have to decide that case by case. If I say, "This has got to be the most beautiful sunset I have ever seen!" and you respond with, "Pfft, I've seen better." Our contrary opinions have just bumped heads. I could look at you incredulously and say, "Yeah right, better than this?" And then proceed to tell you all the reasons why I think it is the most beautiful one I have ever seen, and you could respond with all the reasons it pails in comparison to other sunsets you've witness. But how silly and vain of an argument would that be? We are clearly dealing with subjective data, the beauty of a sunset can't be quantifiable, because it is in the eye of the beholder.
If we're dealing with something that could potentially be proven, but can't, then it'd be a bit more reasonable to debate it, but we'd probably just still be bumping the heads of our opinions together. If I say Wilt Champerlain is the best basketball player ever, and doubleKO says Micheal Jordan was the best ever, we could argue this out, do research, and come up with stats, but ultimately the data doesn't exist to prove it either way. Records were kept differently back when Wilt played to the time Jordan played, so it is hard to measure the two against each other fairly and with certainty. So it remains an opinion on both of out parts, but each of our opinions are based on facts (they were both extremely good players) as well as subjective feelings (my affinity for Wilt against KO's affinity for Micheal). A debate about this can be fun, enjoyable, and even rewarding, but as far as determining anything, it is as fruitless as the sunset debate.
If none of that is the case, I honestly don't see why I can't do that, and then let the other one defend their opinion if they can.
You can. I think what was getting people upset was the abrasive way you'd do it, with remarks such as, "Well, its official now, accept it" etc.
People like to discuss stupid relatively meaningless shit when they are bored, like how often is the second sequel to anything ever any good, or bounce around thoughts and theories like under what circumstances a remake could/should be justified or not. You can't really tack any of this stuff down to solid fact. The quality of movies is hard to quantify. One movie may be amazing to one person, well acted and fantastically written and crafted, but to another person it could be boring as hell and therefore a bad movie. Is one of them wrong? Maybe a little. I think you can find writing and acting and production that is objectively bad or objectively decent, but you'll still find people who find it subjectively good or perhaps even very good. I may have loved every remake I have seen, and so think they are a great idea; or I may have hated every remake I have seen, and so think they are a horrible idea. Who can prove me objectively wrong either way?