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?