twooffour

Yea, well, and you're a dominatrix!!



...

Yea?

CP3S said:

I'm flattered, twooffour. But let's be honest, I am just a mere poser. YOU are "the" master. My pathetic little post doesn't hold a candle to your work.

Only a poser of evil, C.

Nah, all kidding aside - it probably would, had it also been tongue-in-cheek, and not so damn self-serious.

I used "then" incorrectly, waaaaaah... important. It just seemed to me like you wanted on Frink's list, too.

You avoided the points I was trying to make and went on about how I was changing the sub-topic.

and I really don't have much interest in your convoluted reasoning

Well, if you didn't read it, you can't really talk about me "avoiding your points", now can you?

All you've ever addressed, ever, was me pointing you to your mistake - but hey, feel free to go around accusing me of "avoiding", regardless.

about the well established and defined meanings of "facts" and "opinions" being wrong.

Me:
"Having that said, please quote a single line from my last response, or ANY post ever posted by me, where I actually challenged the meanings of fact, fiction, or opinion."

Which you didn't do.

What was that bit with "facts", they have to be "corraborated", right?

It's funny how you go around claiming I was challenging dictionary definitions (while all I was challenging, was the graphic's and YOURS - how tall are you?), right after telling me how disinterested you are in reading any of that.


If you're so hung up on "dictionaries", here's a thing: dictionaries usually contain MULTIPLE meanings of the same word.
Like, "opinion" can have the meaning of "taste", as well as that of an insufficiently proven view of some situation (which wouldn't have anything to do with "taste" anymore).

So if I point out this obvious distinction, and how there is a number of different notions that can be called "an opinion", and you should better define what kind you're referring to, I'm not really challenging the dictionary, I SUPPORT it.

But I agree with you on one thing, I really do challenge the dictionary when I make a distinction between "fact" and "knowledge", and saying it would make for a more precise juxtapposition to "opinion".
Not sure if I challenge the established terms if I say that an opinion, as such, is a fact, but not its content. Like, the fact that an important individual, or a percentage of a population, has a certain "opinion", can be part of a statistic as well, and influence education programs and marketing strategies while at it, but its content isn't factual. You tell me.

But challenging some sloppy post of yours is obviously the same as going against the academic community, in your perception. No comment required.

TV's Frink said:

 

twooffour said:PS: Retroactive Rule of Internet Asskickery, my friend. It wasn't the temporal sense of "then", more like "and with all that in mind", or "on top of that". Like "how you wanna lecture me while getting such basics mixed up". Could've said "and that after", but hey, wouldn't have mattered.

lol, this is the best quote ever.

 

Hey, you aksed for it.

Here's another one, it's not as good, but it comes close:

Technically you don't want to use "and then" in this instance, since my lecturing you took place prior to the silly errors in my post that officially established that I don't know there is a difference between "opinion" and "fiction" and feel they can be used interchangeably.

Sehr toll, sehr toll.

It's assonance (=getting the rhyme wrong), and looks like a dominatrix hat. In my imagination.

Yours was hilarious, btw :D

doubleKO said:

Well, I gave it a "shot".

I guess as long as I don't read your post, get an epiphany and say "of course, you are so right", it means you couldn't get through to me, eh?

Maybe I should just let it go. Have people, with certainty, accusing me of stating "opinions" as "facts" without providing a single example, all the while posting graphics with flawed and incomplete definitions of those.

Don't wanna make the impression that I was somehow trying to "win" due to some compulsive disorder, now do I?
I mean, that's something I'd like to avoid!

You can be pretty rude and you do seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of it

SHOUTING at people

I'm really just using caps for emphasis, as I feel underlining looks too pedantic, and italic too subtle. But I really don't care. Neither do I care about italics vs. quote boxes.

Sorry if my caps offended you in any way. Or my italics.

and stating your opinions as facts

Well, go have a happy look over at the other thread, if you wanna start with that.
But hey, what was that last "opinion" that I "stated as fact"? That's if you can think of any examples.

Although, isn't that technically an opinion of yours, that you're stating as a fact, right now?

If you always act the jerk, how are we to know that you're not a jerk?

It's called basic sense of humor.

Well you've posted quite a bit of dumbshit in the last few days, so I couldn't really have known, now could I?

But yea, hey, apology accepted, whatever.

The fact that this is the only part you ever bothered to address, tells me enough already, so what the heck.

EDIT: Heh, thanks for the edit. It's like I'd guessed what you were going to add beforehand :D
Yea, exactly. I'm trying to discredit your other points by clinging to your little "mistake", yes? Well, what other points?
All you said in the end was "oh my god, I used the wrong words, I lose!!"
You had no points.

PS: Retroactive Rule of Internet Asskickery, my friend. It wasn't the temporal sense of "then", more like "and with all that in mind", or "on top of that". Like "how you wanna lecture me while getting such basics mixed up". Could've said "and that after", but hey, wouldn't have mattered.
But hey, just saying... you know... Captain Needa.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

Well it depends over what, and if it's a lame joke that was never meant to be offensive in the first place

So, insulting the intelligence of others is simply a "joke" and shouldn't be taken offensively.

Wow, you're a dense fellow (I can say this on off-topic, btw)... no, it was INTENDED as a joke. WRITTEN as a joke.
A humorous insult (in this case, in form of an intentionally lame, nonsensical repartee) isn't offensive by definition.

But hey, continue to insist that you had any justification to be offended, as it seems your "intelligence" is at jeopardy here.

By that "logic" you do realize you could say virtually anything to anyone, then wuss out and hid behind your "It was a lame joke!" defense, then tell them they had no reason to be offended at your insult because it wasn't intended to be offensive.

I've said this multiple times before, I was never offended. Just because wasn't willing to take your bullshit doesn't mean I was offended. It takes a lot more than just some guy with little man syndrome on a web forum to offend me.

The very fact that it "rubbed you the wrong way", or that you took it as any form of "bullshit" that you could even begin to "not take" (all the while it was neither addressed at you, nor meant ANY seriously whatsoever), is already more than enough hilarity to shatter the fabrics of spacetime.

It was obviously enough for you to make me your "least favorite member of this board" after "having rather liked me" up until that point. Because of a fucking obvious joke.

Had you actually taken any "serious offense" to that, we wouldn't be still sitting here as the universe would've long exploded and vanished from existence due to internal contradictions.

So don't be redundant and tell me you weren't very offended by a joke, just a little bit. We still exist, and I can still laugh at you all the same - and that's all that really matters, isn't it?

doubleKO, thank god you put "butthurting" in quotes! That phrase should never be allowed to roam free among other words. Of it must be repeated, keeping it safely contained between quotation marks is most certainly for the best.

So then why so sensitive, CP?



:P

Not all wounds heal as quickly as yours, CP...
I couldn't have known!

       I once knew a young woman at PETA,
who deeply scorned how they treated that cheetah.
           But once she got right
           with the trainer one night,
           she ardently rethought her credo.

I clarified this for twister's benefit as she said I seemed perplexed.
Oh... sorry :D


It's a bit weird that you find offending and "butthurting" someone hilarious

Well it depends over what, and if it's a lame joke that was never meant to be offensive in the first place (unless, you know, read at face value), then yes, it's absolutely hilarious, and I doubt you really find that "weird".



Yea, LW4 was pretty slick, I think...

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

No, you're disputing the established topic of this sub-discussion, which is FACT and OPINION, not "fiction".

Shit! Used the wrong word on accident!

CP3S loses the thread. It's official.

Not really by "accident", seeing as how you continued to use it about 3-4 times after that.
I'd say it was a thought failure - you really couldn't distinguish between "opinion that can't be knowledge due to lack of data", "opinion about mental states" and "making up a bunch of stuff that doesn't exist".

And then you wanna lecture me about "established definitions".


So yea, pretty official, I'd say.

twister111 said:

twister PSA to those such as twooffour who fail at making a joke. As a person whom has personally experienced a joke fail in the past, I have learned the proper ways to deal with such situational appearances.

If someone on the interwebs is stating they don't understand the reason why you posted that out of place item. Recognize your joke has failed for them at least. They are either most likely perplexed why you posted that (CP3S & doubleKO appear to be this) or, a troll (CP3S & doubleKO are not this).

In either case the proper way to approach this situation is several different ways. Amongst which include just shrugging it off ex. "It was just a joke man. Seems it failed for you. *shrug*" Or creating another joke out of it ex. "What do you mean? George Lucas is wrong with his numbering system??? *gasp* How DARE you?! He has billions of money. I bet the guy can count to 4!!!! {/sarcasm}"

What you shouldn't do is go through pages of ranting over the justification of the joke. Takes whatever funny there was in it out and, dissects it into a science experiment with no cake!!!! *sniff* I wants my companion cube!!!! Oh, sorry, um yeah. What I said before.

But there was no funny in there in the first place, so what the heck :)

But hey, I just said something about a "humor transplant", and then making ANOTHER JOKE about brain size - I didn't start the whole justification rant thing until CP got seriously offended and butthurt. Which is just hilarious.

doubleKO said:

That's some good advice. Maybe I should have added a :) or ;) to be more clear that my "How dare you" was also in fun, but IN YOUR FACE is how twobyfour seems to like it... For the record I didn't think he was serious calling them "predecessors", but heed the PSA twooffour - brevity is the soul of wit.

For the record (and I've already mentioned it somewhere here, but no one should be expected to find it) I CAUGHT your "in fun" remark, and the "predecessors" part was PLAYING ALONG.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

Yea, I dare arguing against a silly picture from the internet, how badass.

Listen, you clown, unless you can't be bothered, feel free to look at the graphic again. Does it mention "logic" anywhere?

It is a picture on the internet, but it isn't from the internet. You'll find that same breakdown of fact and fiction in 2nd grade reading text books all over the country. It isn't really "badass". "Nonsensical" or "weird" are more the words I'd have used. I mean, you are actually disputing the established meanings of "fact" and "fiction".

Not sure what "clown" you're talking to; but I'll answer your question about "logic" and how it relates to "fact" and "fiction". Logic is independent from fact or fiction and can fit into either category. 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. You'll find facts that are as illogical as hell, but they are still facts. So it goes.

 

But hey, you want me to argue? Very fine.

I never said I wanted to argue. Can't be bothered. I'd rather just be amused while watching you try so hard.

It is a picture on the internet, but it isn't from the internet.
It was taken from the internet, probably just Google. Not some academic source, I'd take.

You'll find that same breakdown of fact and fiction in 2nd grade reading text books all over the country.
Well excuse me if I'm not completely satisfied with the comprehensiveness of a simplified graphic for fucking 2nd graders.

I mean, you are actually disputing the established meanings of "fact" and "fiction".
No, you're disputing the established topic of this sub-discussion, which is FACT and OPINION, not "fiction".
Having that said, please quote a single line from my last response, or ANY post ever posted by me, where I actually challenged the meanings of fact, fiction, or opinion.

All I challenged were the unprecise definitions in this lacklustre 2nd grader graphic, in relation to the... established meanings of fact and opinion.


Regardless of the logic involved, a fact is a fact and an opinion is an opinion.
Yes, and the knowledge of a fact (given that it's not a fact that is directly and unambiguously observable, and basically obvious) stands and falls with accurate, and fallacious logic, just as the accuracy of an opinion stands and falls with logic.

The supposed "knowledge" of facts (and that's really what you should distinguish between, opinion and KNOWLEDGE) can be completely wrong if derived through hair-raising logical fallacies, and so can any opinion relating to anything tangible, be it facts, logical or imaginary/fictional constructs, or moral values and well-being.


So when you accuse me of selling my "opinions" as "facts", what you probably really mean, is that I treat my flawed opinions based on fallacies, subjective biases and leaps of logic, as opinions well grounded in reason.
Or, alternatively, maybe it's externalizing my personal tastes on the outside world, i.e. attributing my mental reactions to certain objects, to the objects themselves.

I dunno, have I done the former (which would be basically just poor argumentation)? Have I done the latter?

Or maybe I've pretended to know something, while I actually just guessed or presumed?
So which is it now?

Because just saying "wrong", or "no, that's how it is", isn't necessarily a factual statement, it may as well be "this is how it makes sense, because this and that".


Although I wonder what examples you people REALLY can up with, when it comes down to it.
So far, I've seen you getting repeatedly butthurt about disclaimed jokes, or reacting with bewilderment at me calling a completely messed up analogy "wrong".
Seems like you people are much less about intellectual honesty or calling things their names, than about political correctness and beating around the bush.

WHY should I beat around the bush if I see a nonsensical argument (and can explain why it's nonsensical, or flawed)? How long should I beat around the bush saying "well, in my opinion...", before losing it?

This is beyond silly beyond silly. All of it. Next time you see me proclaim myself as "right" about something, tell me how my statement is actually flawed, or inherently subjective by definition with no external qualifier. Quit whining about "oh, he said wrong, he's so arrogant" while citing little more than stripped-down quotes of which a half is comprised of jokes anyway

And just as a hint, if I say something was a joke 5 times, it probably was.

.

too lazy and indifferent, didn't read?

(j/k)

You're doing it wrong.

And I have no respect for my other thread, either :P
I say my thread, although as soon as you started posting for me, it really became your thread, which is, of course, what this is all about.

If you mean this thread, I mainly started it because I was bored, and apparently couldn't say I liked SM4 on the "triquels" thread (which is all your fault, by the way).
No respect at all :)

Yea, I dare arguing against a silly picture from the internet, how badass.

Listen, you clown, unless you can't be bothered, feel free to look at the graphic again. Does it mention "logic" anywhere?

So you seem to be the epistemology expert here, you tell me.
The "correctness" of a logical conclusion based on facts, and the "incorrectness" of a logical fallacy, that fits where? Does deducible count as "provable"?
Or is it "opinion", as it's a construct based on facts?

Here's the thing, the graphic is INCOMPLETE, and I was just asking to fill it in. Not even fucking arguing against anything.
It also leaves out the distinction between opinions aimed at getting a grasp of objective facts, and opinions as completely subjective states of mind (a part you clearly overlooked on purpose).
Why that matters? Because it's a fundamental difference whether I say "you're wrong" to someone for disliking a movie I'm a fan of, or for using a clear fallacy, like faulty analogy, in their argument, or making some kind of completely absurd conclusion.

You throw all that in the bag of "opinions", what you get is a mess.



But hey, you want me to argue? Very fine.

"Facts are certainties"
The definition of a fact is something that is, independent of the observer.
It's not a given that the knowledge, or comprehension of this "fact", can be called a "certainty".
Having a statistic in your hand is a certainty, the accuracy of that statistic, not so much.
Very fallible, all based on probabilities (including the accuracy of the methods of getting the statistic), very dependent on numerous independent confirmations, and so, very, disputable (down to the very methods of research and quality control).

Opinions are disputable, sure (and in case of the subjective opinions, there ain't even anything to dispute, merely exchange and express) - but so are many of the things listed as the "buzz-words" for "facts".


What about those on the other half?
"Always, never"... what? Ok, how about physical laws? Those are as close to "certain facts" as it gets, and physical laws apply "always" in given circumstances.


"Might" Sounds like an opinion, but it can often be as close to "certainty" as it gets. We might give the patient this and that treatment, and with a certain probability, he MIGHT respond well.
Is it an "opinion", or the best current FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE?


So this is something for you to ponder.
Mainly whether you should continue to treat some random internet graphic (with a fat false dichotomy in it, at that) as the Holy Bible.

Or, hey, you know, just say "tl;dr" and then some stupid shit like "lol he's trying to redefine common academic definitions in order to justify his opinions about ANH".
Whatever floats your boat, mate, but beware - it may only float in your mind.