RedFive said:
Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?
No. I ignored him/her/it. His/her/it's posts are stinky.
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
RedFive said:
Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?
I just bookmark them for later, and skim for the usual twooffour buzzwords.
twooffour said:
If I had the time, I'd go through all your posts to get a count of how many times you've said this exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again. Aren't you getting tired of saying the same thing yet?
Certainly more tired than you all of not getting / reading that same thing all over again.
Think about it, whose fault would it be that I'm repeating myself?
Now someone might say it's disputable... but then look at this:
If I had the time, I'd go through all your posts
QED, Bitch.
Here's the thing pal, if you "don't have the time" to read what I say, then DON'T REPLY TO IT.
It's like, you can't be bothered to put in the bit of effort (we're not discussing some kind of difficult academic issue here), but you still somehow want to squeeze in that I don't get something a 1st grader does, or do some stupid thing with your "opinions".
Because of the three alternatives,
1) having a sensible discussion, with the prospect of winning, or learning something new, or some mix inbetween,
2) bowing out and everyone forgetting about it in a few hours, and
3) staying on, but making oneself into a laughing stock,
which one would be the least desirable, to you?
From there you started being a major asshole so I asked "What the fuck is your problem", because I felt your reaction was uncalled for and we typically like to keep it civil around here.
Wow... wow. Hold on there for one second... are you seriously trying to tell met that... you still don't get that the "major asshole" part was... ALSO a joke??
Really, CP? Really?
Yea, your "what the fuck" "dumbshit" "least favorite member" was the first real douche post in here, and that's where you introduced the animosity. So glad we've finally got that cleared up.
Expect that kind of reaction when you use fighting words.
Like "dumbshit"?
If I were standing here with the vast majority of off topic regulars saying I am the one being the problem, I'd like to think I'd be smart enough to stop for a second to look at myself and reevaluate the situation.
What you fail to realize it that, I can reevaluate it, I do it in almost every new post, and it DOESN'T STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.
It simply doesn't. The evidence and indications for the preposterous suggestion that, despite fighting against a dozen of like-minded people, I seem to have the highground... is so overwhelming and shocking, with each new reply I'm reading from any of you guys, that I have no choice.
One example being THIS VERY POST.
You just denied introducing animosity into this debacle, blaming me... while the posting history clearly speaks against you.
Now you've, once again, weaseled out of an argument (it was your move to post an objection), claiming you "have no time", and in no time, you'll be back complaining about I confuse facts with opinions, or don't get the definitions.
Again, an argument is decided by WHICH PARTY CAN PUT UP THE ARGUMENTS. And then defend them against scrutiny and objection. And do it again.
NOT BY THE NUMBER OF FIGHTERS on each side. Quality over quantity.
I see the stupidity, I laugh at it, I describe it in painstaking detail, and in the next, or second next, response, it's done AGAIN. And I analyse it again. And then it happens AGAIN.
This is how you'd feel on TFN, and that's how I feel here.
Doing anything else would be cosmical insecurity on my part, and complete detachment from sense and reality.
Zaboo says:
Bookmark'd.
RedFive said:
Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?
What do you mean, "still"?
CP3S said:
Mrebo said:
You're not doing a "nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word 'opinion,'" you're confusing the definitions.
Oh, but he thinks he is doing a nerdy, technical term deconstruction thing of the word "opinion", and if he thinks it, it might as well be reality.
Precisely.
twooffour,
You missed the point again. Well you did catch the sarcasm (you used the word "sarcasm" or "sarcastic" 7 times in your post). The problem with replying to your previous post in a more substantive manner, as I tried doing for many previous pages on the topic of remakes is that you really cannot follow anyone else's argument but your own.
I explained why saying a pencil will fall to the floor when dropped is not a fact (its merely a prediction). Your rebuttal consisted of saying, 'well you know what I really meant, like in a everyday conversational sense and how dare you be intellectual about it!'
I'm not entirely clear on if you think my method of argumentation is too intellectual (as if that matters) or if my definition of fact is somehow too intellectual. If it's the former, that's not a rebuttal, that's whining. If it's the latter, well we are arguing over the definitions so calling my distinction too intellectual does not mean it's wrong.
Nonetheless, I offered an explanation for not using some kind of "everyday conversational" definition of "fact":
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 offer:
"How about both, since the two are kinda related?"
To which I can only say, so what? Yes...there is a relationship between the topic of what is a fact vs opinion and the topic of confusing the two ideas. But the question at hand was your misuse of the term fact, which you resist admitting to by calling me out for being "intellectual."
You continue your rebuttal to my above quote with:
"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."
No duh. But just because this board is full of everyday language and silly graphics does not mean the rules of logic need to get muddled. You're just making poor excuses to ignore my argument.
When I explained the merit of using an intellectual approach:
"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."
You didn't really offer a rebuttal, except to say:
"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."
So the possibilities are not mentioned that would prove your statement false, so they're assumed to not be there, so that you can be correct. Right, no circular logic there at all (this too is sarcasm). It is a fact that things fall due to gravity. That's not more or less intellectual or conversational, it's just precise. That a pencil will fall to the ground when you drop it is a prediction based on that fact, but not a fact itself. You smugly seem to think that your snarky "Thanks you finally got that now, thanks" actually addresses anything.
You offer an opening to continue the madness:
"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?"
So you admit you have no knowledge of the basis for this discussion after being involved in it for a couple pages. This is the point it really feels like talking to a brick wall. You think my sarcasm is defensive or that I'm trying to weasel out answering your ever so cogent argument (again, sarcasm).
In reality it's a matter of the apparent futility of arguing with you when you admit you have no idea what the basis of discussion is, your rebuttals consist of personal attacks, you whine about something being too intellectual, and insist that we should blur the line between actual meanings of words and how they might be used in everyday speech. It's all a bunch of sophist (said it again) nonsense.
If you're wondering why I chose that single line from your post to criticize, it is because it is so obviously in error. The goal was to pin you down when you're obviously wrong to see how you would react. And as we see, it's by whining about intellectualism, imploring us to just know how you meant it (which is still wrong), and claiming ignorance of the basis of the argument (which is important to keep in mind for the discussion to make sense). The rest of that post is just as flawed (no matter how many times you link back to it).
At the very least, you can see my sarcasm was not defensive or an attempt to avoid your intellectual firepower. It is honest frustration with your inability to admit error or even understand what is being discussed. It is fatigue with your personal attacks.
I actually meant my sarcastic post to hit quite close to the mark of your perception of yourself and it seems that it did. Thus it is amusing to me that after I said:
Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth.
You replied with:
"An obliviously accurate statement meant as sarcasm - instant unintented irony hilarity awesomecake."
I said it because I believe that you hold that view. So it was a perspicacious observation. If me thinking you are wrong creates "awesomecake," you already have a lifetime supply. I think you know irony about as well as Alanis Morissette. Isn't that ironic?
The blue elephant in the room.
Mrebo said:
I think you know irony about as well as Alanis Morissette. Isn't that ironic?
/thread
The OT.com "I suck" Hall of Fame
kenkraly2007
haljordan28
skyjedi2005
twoffour
Janskeet
luke.the.darkside.is.fun.
adamwankenobi
Zigfried
Does that pretty much cover it?
as I tried doing for many previous pages on the topic of remakes is that you really cannot follow anyone else's argument but your own.
I don't remember much of it right now, but I vividly remember how you couldn't follow my music analogy.
I explained why saying a pencil will fall to the floor when dropped is not a fact (its merely a prediction). Your rebuttal consisted of saying, 'well you know what I really meant, like in a everyday conversational sense and how dare you be intellectual about it!'
Whether you could follow it or not, when I said it, here's the thing:
What you did was needless hairsplitting. A worthy discussion to be having in some other context, but pretty useless here.
My equivalent with opinions, however isn't. One kind of opinion is completely subjective and doesn't describe a factual circumstance - the other does, and is merely less certain than, well, certain knowledge. It was an important distinction in this context.
Why? Well...
If I get accused of fighting someone's opinion as if it were a fact, I wanna know which kind of opinion it was to begin with.
Because the dichotomy you're apparently basing these accusations on, namely that it's either an opinion, or debunkable, is a false dichotomy.
This leads me to believe that maybe if you're saying I'm debunking an opinion as if it were a fact, I wasn't really treating it as a fact, I was merely treating it as a wrong or fallacious judgment, which a judgment, i.e. the "second" kind of opinion... CAN be.
So instead of treating an opinion as fact... I'm treating a debunkable opinion as a debunkable opinion.
That's just one example demonstrating how making the distinctions I'm making, is essential.
Yours, however?
Fact, prediction. Shmediction. It's a DEMONSTRABLE CERTAINTY, period.
This argument is about opinions vs. facts, i.e. subjective statements being confused with objective ones, and unsupported claims with supported claims.
Whether we're talking about facts of history, of current world events, or of how the universe works at all times, doesn't matter an iota here.
Factual statements can be less, or more certain. If they're uncertain enough, they're called "opinions". If they're pretty damn certain, they're called "facts".
Predictions can be less, or more certain. If uncertain enough, they're called opinions. If they're pretty damn certain... how are they called?
Is it "facts"? Or something else? Maybe just "certain prediction"?
I honestly don't know, because I've always thought that certain predictions were called "facts", too.
Not the predictions themselves, but the FACT that if you do something under given circumstances, something WILL happen, as a universal law.
At any rate, I don't see how this has to do with the "topic".
But the question at hand was your misuse of the term fact, which you resist admitting to by calling me out for being "intellectual."
I said "intellectual masturbation", which isn't the same thing.
There's a difference between "intellectual" and "smartass" - the former understands what needs to be said, the latter randomly spews out smart things they know that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, like that a pen would only fall if there's gravity.
All you really contributed was that there's a difference between a factual circumstance and a prediction (which has nothing to do with anything here), and that some particular thing I called a certainty, is maybe just a little bit less certain.
Ok... so what? There are things that are more certain than dying from falling from the 10th floor. Like burning in the atmosphere if you fall naked from a lot higher. There are things less certain, like getting infection from a wound.
When you've reached a low enough level of certainy, you've got "opinion". Which was my point to begin with.
So the possibilities are not mentioned that would prove your statement false, so they're assumed to not be there, so that you can be correct.
What? No.... no... Jesus, no.
Here again for the slow ones:
Everyday life: "If you do X, you'll cause Y to happen. (Thinking: Now technically it may not happen if Z or Z1 happens, but that's preposterous, and what the hell, we're not some fucking nerds.)"
Precise nerd language: "If you do X, you'll cause Y, unless Z Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4, all of which together would have the probability of 0.1%. We have to mention it aloud, because we're precise nerds."
At the end of the day, when you strip away all the whens and buts, you've still got... A CERTAIN PREDICTION, about a FACT that WILL happen if you cause another FACT to happen.
Or is it event, not fact?
...
Tell me, how big is the possibility that, if I hold an Oxford dictionary in my hand, at home, with closed windows, and let it go, and it starts falling to the ground, and no one catches it.. it won't fall on the floor?
How big is the possibility that some well-documented fact you know from the media, or friends, or papers, is actually 50% inaccurate, or completely false, due to some elaborated hoax? Is it non-existent? No, but how big?
So if you argue against me calling the former a fact, because it's not certain enough, then how many "facts" can you really call "facts"?
The puppy is black. But maybe your brain is hallucinating, and it's actually pink, and everyone else says it's pink, but your brain hears black?
So seems like nothing is a fact after all, eh?
So what is it then? Opinion? Hell no. How about I say "almost fact", and we just treat it as a fact?
That a pencil will fall to the ground when you drop it is a prediction based on that fact, but not a fact itself.
If it's a fact that the universe works in a way that will make the pencil drop (account for both gravity, and all other factors that may prevent it from falling, whatever they may be), then it's a fact that it will drop.
Having that, I'll gladly give you the distinction between prediction and fact.
This discussion is still about degrees of certainty vs. subjective mental states, not this.
___________________________
So you admit you have no knowledge of the basis for this discussion after being involved in it for a couple pages.
Wow, the irony in that is just hair-raising...
Yea, and you know why? Because, as you can surely notice if you look back at page 4, I DIDN'T START IT.
Red5 and a couple others started ACCUSING ME of confusing facts with opinions, without providing a single actual example, or even defining what kind of "opinion" they mean (and in order to do that, you first need to understand that there can be different kinds).
Please do yourself a fucking favor, and look up "burden of proof".
I'm not the one who's supposed to "know" what others are trying to convey. They are.
In reality it's a matter of the apparent futility of arguing with you when you admit you have no idea what the basis of discussion is
Lol.
It's all a bunch of sophist (said it again) nonsense.
Pointing out how it wouldn't drop in space without gravity, is sophist nonsense.
claiming ignorance of the basis of the argument
Let's be clear here, the basis of the argument is that so far, I seem to be the only one who understands that opinion doesn't just mean taste.
I've never claimed ignorance of that, all I said was that I don't know where I committed the crime, because no one told me yet.
I said it because I believe that you hold that view. So it was a perspicacious observation
Yes, with the clear implication that this view was inaccurate. The irony was in the fact that actually, it was accurate :P
OR IS IT???
But hey, enough of that already.
Can we just pin this down to the core?
"Opinion":
1. A factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic. OR:
2. A statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world (i.e. this sunset IS beautiful), but what really happens is that the person's BRAIN finds it beautiful.
One word, two completely different meanings.
Same in German and Russian.
So how can we agree on that, please? Or would you argue that?
Thanks.
Ziggy Stardust said:
The OT.com "I suck" Hall of Fame
kenkraly2007
haljordan28
skyjedi2005
twoffour
Janskeet
luke.the.darkside.is.fun.
adamwankenobi
Zigfried
Does that pretty much cover it?
How the hell is that?
So thanks, you're equating me with complete master trolls like "Janskeet" who've been trolling this forum with changing identities for months.
And then there's skyjedi, who just tends to be repetitive about his distaste for Lucas and the prequels, but is pretty much an okay fellow.
The only thing that sucks here is your stupid list, and so does your face.
Oh... Jesus... fuck.
I probably could edit out many chunks out of that last one, but I'm not gonna bother now.
FUck.
Rebekah Brooks says :
Partyin', partyin' (Yeah) Partyin', partyin' (Yeah) Fun, fun, fun, fun.
twooffour said:
The only thing that sucks here is your stupid list, and so does your face.
Hey! My face is beautiful!
In fact, here I am!
BTW, not actually me.
^Looks like Troy off Benidorm.
twooffour said:
RedFive said:
Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?
What do you mean, "still"?
LOL. He doesn't think anyone has ever been reading his posts, but he still keeps writing them.
CP3S said:
twooffour said:
RedFive said:
Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?
What do you mean, "still"?
LOL. He doesn't think anyone has ever been reading his posts, but he still keeps writing them.
Well, that has its own advantages.
It means I can always say with a straight face that I've done that, been there, and always have a post to link to if necessary ;)
You see, if I weren't writing them, any miscommunication would be my fault :p
Alright, here's the thing, lads:
When I try to figure out what exactly this whole argument is about, here's the answers I can come up with:
-who's the bigger douche
-who's posted some douche post in some post
-who thinks they're right, or smart, or whatever.
I'd say enough with this crap.
I'm gonna boil this down to these few things, nothing else will be answered (probably):
-Facts vs. Opinions - anyone who still wants to claim I've committed some crime in the direction, feel welcome to cite, or link to, at least one example.
-If someone wants to argue about definitions of "opinion" or whatever, about how untouchable/falsifiable/justifiable opinions can or cannot be, please address this skeletor part:
Can we just pin this down to the core?
"Opinion":
1. A factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic. OR:
2. A statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world (i.e. this sunset IS beautiful), but what really happens is that the person's BRAIN finds it beautiful.
One word, two completely different meanings.
Same in German and Russian.
So how can we agree on that, please? Or would you argue that?
-Mrebo can inform me whether a "certain prediction" can be called a "fact", if he wants.
-If someone wants to share their personal philosophy about internet arguments, like when you can say that someone is "winning", or "right", and vice versa (especially if it has nothing to do with backing up one's god damn position - let's hear some of that), whatever, feel free.
I doubt anything new or remotely interesting can ever come out of this, but everything else will be just ignored from the get go.
Or even better, how about something on-topic.
Thanks.
twooffour said:
Can we just pin this down to the core?
"Opinion":
1. A factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic. OR:
2. A statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world (i.e. this sunset IS beautiful), but what really happens is that the person's BRAIN finds it beautiful.
One word, two completely different meanings.
Same in German and Russian.
So how can we agree on that, please? Or would you argue that?
But they aren't really two completely different meanings (and I am not sure why you keep mentioning the German and Russian words, I am trilingual myself, but the English meaning is all that matters here).
The meaning from the 2nd grade text book "Fact or Opinion" chart used the definition: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"
My beloved Oxford English Dictionary words it like this in a single definition (no second or third definition like your dictionary, rather it lists those as examples): "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"
Let's contrast those with your two definitions: "a factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic" and
"a statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world."
Your two definitions are saying the EXACT same thing as The Oxford English Dictionary and "Fact and Opinion" chart.
F & O Chart: "not founded on proof or certainty"
Oxford: "not necessarily based on fact of knowledge"
Twofour's Dic: "factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic"
All three of these are saying the same thing, the statement may be factual, but there isn't sufficient evidence to support it (thus it isn't founded on proof or certainty, or in other words, it isn't necessarily based on fact or knowledge). Or in your second definition it is a "subjective mental state", which again is saying nothing contrary to or different from "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty" or "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"
All three sources give the word "opinion" the exact same meaning, yours just does it in twice as many words. Both your definitions are encompassed under the single definition from the first two sources.
The only other meaning of the word "opinion" would be in the sense of "legal opinion" or "medical opinion" etc., but you never claimed those meanings as your reason for being so confused about what meaning of the word we were trying to use.
"a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"
The problem is the vagueness.
These definitions do a good job of describing what qualifies to be called an "opinion", basically summing up the two notions I was talking about in one convenient package.
Subjective opinion, or taste
A basic aesthetic appraisal of something, like a sunset (hate to use clichés here, but who cares) being "beautiful", is not founded on proof or certainty.
But it also isn't founded on ANY kind of rational or logical considerations at all - neither does it actually make any factual statement about the object in question.
It makes a statement about the mental state in reaction to the object.
The sunset isn't beautiful - the observer's brain perceives it as beautiful. If there's any objective ambition in a statement like "this sunset IS beautiful", it really means "it will appear beautiful to others, too, because we all share similar brains".
An aesthetic judgment of some complex art work, may involve all kinds of rational thought, determining which elements work together in what way in order to create some aesthetic effect, if you look at it one way or the other, etc.
But it'll still be founded on aesthetic perception, i.e. a subjective mental state.
Factual opinion (not an official term, just something I thought fits)
Now, some kind of "this country is going to the dogs, and here's apparently why", is also a "judgement not founded on proof or certainty".
But it actually TRIES to make a claim about supposed facts. The facts ARE out there (unlike the beauty of the sunset, which is all in the mind), but impossible to determine with "proof and certainy", so you go by what you have.
Should proof and certainty for this opinion crop up, it'll become factual knowledge.
Should some appear that debunk it, it'll CHANGE and become factual knowledge then.
This type of opinion is an attempt to approach factual knowledge. Which means, it can be more accurate, or less accurate, than another.
If your judgement is based on faulty logic, it can be debunked, or attacked.
If the logic is so awful beyond remedy, this opinion can be simply indisputably wrong.
For the other, no proof will, or can ever crop up. And neither can any logic begin to rebuke it. There is nothing to prove, or debunk - it's a first-person observation about one's own mental state, and nothing else.
Confusing subjective opinion with factual opinion
So if you find a sunset beautiful, but insist that it actually IS beautiful, and it's not just you and some other people... you confuse your mental state with fact, or factual opinion.
If you have some political views about something, but get overly defensive about people criticizing it, saying "it's just an opinion, and I have a right"... you confuse your judgment of actual facts, with a subjective sentiment.
Opinions themselves as facts
The fact that a given person has an opinion of any kind, is a fact in itself.
However, the subjective opinion, is an observation of this "fact" itself. It is based on the KNOWLEDGE of one's own mind.
(Paradoxically, it can also be an opinion of it, as what one thinks of one's one emotions, or views, isn't necessarily complete, or accurate - but that's waay to out there right now.)
The factual opinion may be phrased as an observation about this "fact", like "I think that X", but its CONTENT still refers to some given external circumstance that exist independently of the observer.
Another way to break it down:
Knowledge vs. Value
If we say that there are two basic departments in our mind in relation to the world:
-Knowledge - dedicated to creating an image of the external world inside the mind. Can be directly compared to the external world.
-Values - dedicated to deciding what is "good" or "bad", what is "right" (not "correct"), and what "ought" to be. Is one's personal relation to the external world.
(There's also the department that can create imaginary scenarios, but that plays its function in both of those.)
... then the subjective opinion would be a value statement, as in "I value this sunset for its beauty", or "I value this funny face for its hilarity", and the factual would be in the first department.
Fun with Words
So what exactly am I supposed to take from a description like this:
not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
So if it MAY be based on fact and knowledge, it wouldn't be an opinion anymore, would it?
Or is it really BASED on knowing certain facts, but is an opinion by the virtue of putting them in an unprovable construct?
Well, in one case, the "fact" would be one's own value / mental state, in the other, it would be an external circumstance that may or may not correspond.
However, in the first case, there is no external fact at all, so it's not based on it?
It's as comprehensive a definition, as it's almost useless.
All three of these are saying the same thing, the statement may be factual, but there isn't sufficient evidence to support it (thus it isn't founded on proof or certainty, or in other words, it isn't necessarily based on fact or knowledge).
Or in your second definition it is a "subjective mental state", which again is saying nothing contrary to or different from "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty" or "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"
Both your definitions are encompassed under the single definition from the first two sources.
The only other meaning of the word "opinion" would be in the sense of "legal opinion" or "medical opinion" etc., but you never claimed those meanings as your reason for being so confused about what meaning of the word we were trying to use.
;)
The 3rd one is more of a sub-group of 1., though, if you think about it.
A medical opinion is aimed at facts, but obviously hasn't quit gotten there (you won't have to ask a pysicist for a second opinion on the speed of light, for instance).
Though, I guess, there may also be some value judgements involved, concerning ethical considerations, or what alternative would be "better" for a client, etc. - but I don't know that much about those areas :)
twooffour said:
Fun with Words
So what exactly am I supposed to take from a description like this:
not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
So if it MAY be based on fact and knowledge, it wouldn't be an opinion anymore, would it?
Yes, it could be based on fact or knowledge, but it isn't necessarily. I think it describes that quite clearly in the definition.
An atheist could say based on all his scientific knowledge, he is certain there is no God. But he can't prove this, so the non-existence of God is still his opinion on the matter. If somehow he can disprove the existence of God with complete certainty, then yes, now it would cease to be an opinion and become fact.
This scenario doesn't contradict your dictionary.com definitions, nor Red Five's chart, nor my Oxford English Dictionary's definition.
I can say Micheal Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, but until I provide scores and statistic encompassing the entire history of basketball and show indisputable evidence that he is was, indeed, the greatest of all time, that will just have to remain my opinion. Evidence exists to prove that Micheal Jordan was, in fact, a really fantastic player, so my opinion is based on plenty of factual data, but just not enough data to prove he was the best who ever played.
I could also make the claim that my girlfriend's cat is the cutest thing ever to exist. This opinion is of course purely subjective and has no potential to ever become indisputable fact.
The same rule apply to all three of these scenarios I listed, they all fit just fine within The Oxford English Dictionary's brief definition. The only difference is, two of them, having a basis in facts, could potentially be one day proven as facts (though very unlikely), at which point they'd cease to be opinion (though you could still hold opinions about those subjects).
It is really hard to tell exactly what you are trying to argue, because your posts are often unnecessarily long and typically full of a bunch of attempts at biting sarcasm and other baggage that gets in the way and makes your points hard to follow. However, I must say your last post was quite impressive and very well written and I actually enjoyed reading it, when you are not trying to be biting or condescending your points come through much clearer. Basically, what I think what you are getting at is that one can hold opinions about facts, and/or that one can hold opinions that also happen to be facts. If that is the case, then I agree.
twooffour said:
And then there's skyjedi, who just tends to be repetitive about his distaste for Lucas and the prequels, but is pretty much an okay fellow.
Holy shit, I agree with twooffour about something.
CP3S said:
I can say Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, but until I provide scores and statistic encompassing the entire history of basketball and show indisputable evidence that he is was, indeed, the greatest of all time, that will just have to remain my opinion. Evidence exists to prove that Michael Jordan was, in fact, a really fantastic player, so my opinion is based on plenty of factual data, but just not enough data to prove he was the best who ever played.
I can probably get you enough data to prove this ;)
Until I bring Wilt Chamberlain into the picture. ;)
It can only ever be subjective due to the number of variables involved. Going by stats alone you'd probably have to go with Oscar Robertson or Wilt...
edit - When Remakes are a Bad Idea: Mad Max: Fury Road
Writing twoofour's posts has given me back the wrists I had when I was teen.
I was using a sock then too as I recall.
An atheist could say based on all his scientific knowledge, he is certain there is no God. But he can't prove this, so the non-existence of God is still his opinion on the matter. If somehow he can disprove the existence of God with complete certainty, then yes, now it would cease to be an opinion and become fact.
Basically, what I think what you are getting at is that one can hold opinions about facts, and/or that one can hold opinions that also happen to be facts.
