| It really depends on how much reasoning and accuracy of information analysis rather than what conclusion someone makes is so different views can be equally valid or invalid when on that same ground while ones that these do not match are not equal. Though views on different topics from eachother shouldn't even be compared. |
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DreamWindow if youre asymptomatic then youre the aggressor same with climate change denial
@DreamWindow if youre asymptomatic then youre the aggressor same with climate change denial
I don't think you are thinking clearly, because that makes absolutely no sense.
aggressor /ə-grĕs′ər/
noun
One that engages in aggression.
The person who first attacks or makes an aggression; he who begins hostility or a quarrel; an assailant.
noun
One that engages in aggression.
The person who first attacks or makes an aggression; he who begins hostility or a quarrel; an assailant.
It's clear that those who wish to impose on other people's life are the aggressors. People simply existing, and thinking what they believe, is not an act of aggression. If I think or act a certain way, that is different from what other people think or do, that does not make me an aggressor. What makes someone an aggressor is those who wish to impose their way of life on others, and force people to think and act a certain way. Simply disagreeing with you does not qualify as an act of aggression. Quite the contrary, it means you are free to dissent. Which, is a good thing. But it seems like the only thing you care about is crippling conformity, so I couldn't expect someone of such a stature to really understand the nature of freedom or humanity.
| @DreamWindow ok sure but this is a public health crisis a danger to society not just individual rights |
Reply to Lucifrost
DigiCat said:
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers
I believe he's also talking about lockdowns, meaning he believes his freedom to evade illness is more important than your freedom to work or socialize. Of course, the idea of hiding himself at home while you go about your life has never crossed his mind.
| @Lucifrost so youre against social distancing? maybe against masks too? its a pandemic desperate times calls for desperate measures |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow ok sure but this is a public health crisis a danger to society not just individual rights
deg said: @DreamWindow ok sure but this is a public health crisis a danger to society not just individual rights That's the problem. You don't really have rights if they can be so easily taken away. The US has been in, i think it's something like thirteen different "states of emergencies" for decades now, and this is all because it gives the government justification to meddle where they otherwise wouldn't be justified. You don't have the right to protest where I live, since they can just evoke emergency powers to shut you down, and freeze your bank account (at least those who don't protest in the interests of the state). These are all acts of aggression. You are casting the blame on those who simply want to live their life unimposed. Utilitarian ethics offer no principled moral stance on any situation. You can claim something is a crisis all you want, but it doesn't justify the acts of aggression on people and their livelihood. It just dresses it up in a pretty little frame, claiming that it's in the good of the "society" (which doesn't exist). Society IS a collection of individuals. If there is no individual rights, there is no society. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 8:58 PM
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DreamWindow ok sure but this is a public health crisis a danger to society not just individual rights
@DreamWindow ok sure but this is a public health crisis a danger to society not just individual rights
That's the problem. You don't really have rights if they can be so easily taken away. The US has been in, i think it's something like thirteen different "states of emergencies" for decades now, and this is all because it gives the government justification to meddle where they otherwise wouldn't be justified. You don't have the right to protest where I live, since they can just evoke emergency powers to shut you down, and freeze your bank account (at least those who don't protest in the interests of the state). These are all acts of aggression. You are casting the blame on those who simply want to live their life unimposed.
Utilitarian ethics offer no principled moral stance on any situation. You can claim something is a crisis all you want, but it doesn't justify the acts of aggression on people and their livelihood. It just dresses it up in a pretty little frame, claiming that it's in the good of the "society" (which doesn't exist). Society IS a collection of individuals. If there is no individual rights, there is no society.
| @DreamWindow utilitarianism focuses on consequences if the consequences is big number of global deaths then its obvious preventing that is better its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies |
DreamWindow said: That's the problem. You don't really have rights if they can be so easily taken away. The US has been in, i think it's something like thirteen different "states of emergencies" for decades now, and this is all because it gives the government justification to meddle where they otherwise wouldn't be justified. You don't have the right to protest where I live, since they can just evoke emergency powers to shut you down, and freeze your bank account (at least those who don't protest in the interests of the state). These are all acts of aggression. You are casting the blame on those who simply want to live their life unimposed. The difficulty in discussing this topic is that many people in our world, such as our friend here, don't actually believe in the concept of individual rights, so any such discussion won't go anywhere. Rather, to many, rights are merely privileges granted by a certain deity called government who somehow has magical powers to do things that those who have not been initiated do not have. This is why you see people petitioning government for rights instead of merely living them as true. Their belief in this religion often goes so far as to support violence against people who may go against its will, as we have seen over the past few years. Pretty scary stuff. |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow utilitarianism focuses on consequences if the consequences is big number of global deaths then its obvious preventing that is better
its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies
its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies
deg said: @DreamWindow utilitarianism focuses on consequences if the consequences is big number of global deaths then its obvious preventing that is better its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies Exactly, it focuses too much on consequences. Human rights just get in the way, of the cold and calculated utilitarian solutions. Not even mentioning that such a method of determination, while not only being immoral, is also just largely arbitrary, since individuals have different determinations on what a "positive" consequence is. It's not a necessary evil. It's an evil that you are willing to concede, but it is not based on any kind of principled morality. And so, I can't accept utilitarian determinations as desirable outcomes when they infringe on natural rights. The difficulty in discussing this topic is that many people in our world, such as our friend here, don't actually believe in the concept of individual rights, so any such discussion won't go anywhere. Rather, to many, rights are merely privileges granted by a certain deity called government who somehow has magical powers to do things that those who have not been initiated do not have. This is why you see people petitioning government for rights instead of merely living them as true. Their belief in this religion often goes so far as to support violence against people who may go against its will, as we have seen over the past few years. Pretty scary stuff. Exactly. Rights are natural, the state was supposed to uphold those rights, but has failed too. But since it's the only thing they have known, people look towards it as their saviour. It's truly sad. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 9:31 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to Kvistis
DreamWindow said:
That's the problem. You don't really have rights if they can be so easily taken away. The US has been in, i think it's something like thirteen different "states of emergencies" for decades now, and this is all because it gives the government justification to meddle where they otherwise wouldn't be justified. You don't have the right to protest where I live, since they can just evoke emergency powers to shut you down, and freeze your bank account (at least those who don't protest in the interests of the state). These are all acts of aggression. You are casting the blame on those who simply want to live their life unimposed.
That's the problem. You don't really have rights if they can be so easily taken away. The US has been in, i think it's something like thirteen different "states of emergencies" for decades now, and this is all because it gives the government justification to meddle where they otherwise wouldn't be justified. You don't have the right to protest where I live, since they can just evoke emergency powers to shut you down, and freeze your bank account (at least those who don't protest in the interests of the state). These are all acts of aggression. You are casting the blame on those who simply want to live their life unimposed.
The difficulty in discussing this topic is that many people in our world, such as our friend here, don't actually believe in the concept of individual rights, so any such discussion won't go anywhere. Rather, to many, rights are merely privileges granted by a certain deity called government who somehow has magical powers to do things that those who have not been initiated do not have. This is why you see people petitioning government for rights instead of merely living them as true. Their belief in this religion often goes so far as to support violence against people who may go against its will, as we have seen over the past few years. Pretty scary stuff.
| @Kvistis youre thinking in terms of absolute rules aka deontology me a utilitarian focuses on consequences so different times like peaceful times will have better rights but desperate times calls for desperate measures |
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DreamWindow utilitarianism focuses on consequences if the consequences is big number of global deaths then its obvious preventing that is better
its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies
@DreamWindow utilitarianism focuses on consequences if the consequences is big number of global deaths then its obvious preventing that is better
its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies
Exactly, it focuses too much on consequences. Human rights just get in the way, of the cold and calculated utilitarian solutions. Not even mentioning that such a method of determination, while not only being immoral, is also just largely arbitrary, since individuals have different determinations on what a "positive" consequence is.
It's not a necessary evil. It's an evil that you are willing to concede, but it is not based on any kind of principled morality. And so, I can't accept utilitarian determinations as desirable outcomes when they infringe on natural rights.
The difficulty in discussing this topic is that many people in our world, such as our friend here, don't actually believe in the concept of individual rights, so any such discussion won't go anywhere. Rather, to many, rights are merely privileges granted by a certain deity called government who somehow has magical powers to do things that those who have not been initiated do not have. This is why you see people petitioning government for rights instead of merely living them as true. Their belief in this religion often goes so far as to support violence against people who may go against its will, as we have seen over the past few years. Pretty scary stuff.
Exactly. Rights are natural, the state was supposed to uphold those rights, but has failed too. But since it's the only thing they have known, people look towards it as their saviour. It's truly sad.
| @DreamWindow not all situations have equal consequences so better be flexible with rules and their implementation |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow utilitarianism focuses on consequences if the consequences is big number of global deaths then its obvious preventing that is better
its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies
its a necessary evil or the end justifies the means at times of crisis and disasters again at desperate times only that desperate measures applies
| @deg If a doctor intimately familiar with someone's medical history can't force him to be healthy, how can a faceless government think to do so? I don't think my opinion that a time is not desperate is any less valid than your opinion that a time is desperate. I suppose that answers the question you posed in the OP. |
LucifrostFeb 12, 9:33 PM
| その目だれの目？ |
Reply to Lucifrost
@deg
If a doctor intimately familiar with someone's medical history can't force him to be healthy, how can a faceless government think to do so?
I don't think my opinion that a time is not desperate is any less valid than your opinion that a time is desperate. I suppose that answers the question you posed in the OP.
If a doctor intimately familiar with someone's medical history can't force him to be healthy, how can a faceless government think to do so?
I don't think my opinion that a time is not desperate is any less valid than your opinion that a time is desperate. I suppose that answers the question you posed in the OP.
| @Lucifrost you do not make sense this is a pandemic its a different matter |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow not all situations have equal consequences so better be flexible with rules and their implementation
| @deg We are talking about natural rights, not "rules". It's people's rights that you want to be "flexible". Be honest with yourself. This is exactly what I was saying. All that rights do is get in the way of utilitarian calculations. To the utilitarian, they mean nothing. We should not trust them to uphold them, since they have no moral principles of their own. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg
We are talking about natural rights, not "rules". It's people's rights that you want to be "flexible". Be honest with yourself. This is exactly what I was saying. All that rights do is get in the way of utilitarian calculations. To the utilitarian, they mean nothing. We should not trust them to uphold them, since they have no moral principles of their own.
We are talking about natural rights, not "rules". It's people's rights that you want to be "flexible". Be honest with yourself. This is exactly what I was saying. All that rights do is get in the way of utilitarian calculations. To the utilitarian, they mean nothing. We should not trust them to uphold them, since they have no moral principles of their own.
| @DreamWindow youre just following deontology that is oppose to utilitarianism |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow youre just following deontology that is oppose to utilitarianism
I'd rather have a principled stance on morality and natural rights then to delude myself into thinking that I'm advocating for the "greater good" by encroaching on them. Anything can be justified so long as rights are not a question. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 9:45 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| ehhhh... maybe not always equal. that makes it too easy to cover up racism, hate speech, etc by saying "it's my opinion". |
DRINK SOME WATER! FOOL!!! |
Reply to Gween_Gween
@DigiCat Any chance of you having these opinions...
Climate Change effects are not manmade...
Climate Change is overrated...
Added Sugars are necessary...
COVID vaccines are unnecessary...
?
Climate Change effects are not manmade...
Climate Change is overrated...
Added Sugars are necessary...
COVID vaccines are unnecessary...
?
| @Gween_Gween Not all climate change effects are man made I wouldn't say CC is over or underrated, humans live on earth and if shit happens (or they fuck up) they need to find ways to survive, plain and simple Added sugars aren't necessary, but they aren't poison either Covid vax, like any orthe vax or medication, has it's purpose, but should not be forced on people |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
Reply to DigiCat
@Gween_Gween
Not all climate change effects are man made
I wouldn't say CC is over or underrated, humans live on earth and if shit happens (or they fuck up) they need to find ways to survive, plain and simple
Added sugars aren't necessary, but they aren't poison either
Covid vax, like any orthe vax or medication, has it's purpose, but should not be forced on people
Not all climate change effects are man made
I wouldn't say CC is over or underrated, humans live on earth and if shit happens (or they fuck up) they need to find ways to survive, plain and simple
Added sugars aren't necessary, but they aren't poison either
Covid vax, like any orthe vax or medication, has it's purpose, but should not be forced on people
| @DigiCat I will put it more clearly, do you believe that some parts of global warming are a hoax because of bigger interests? |
Reply to Lucifrost
DigiCat said:
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers
I believe he's also talking about lockdowns, meaning he believes his freedom to evade illness is more important than your freedom to work or socialize. Of course, the idea of hiding himself at home while you go about your life has never crossed his mind.
| @Lucifrost Exactly xD I't hilarious but also frightening how there are people who don't realize that freedom will always involve some sorta risk, you're free to go out, but you could breath in a cold or covid virus, you could get hit by a car, you could trip and fall down stairs (heck that even at home), of course there's nothing wrong with taking some safety precourtions, vaccines are available for those who want, the more attention you pay to the road around you the less likely you are to get hit by a car. Unless you unfortunately live in a wartorn or hyper-corrupt country, you are relitively safe, but if you want total safety, zero chance of risk wahtsoever, you are only free to get that hiding in your own home, never having a shower, cuz slip and fall hit your head or drown, never cooking a meal cuz fire hazzard, but what kind of life is that? and is it truely pure safety? Cuz last i checked isolating yourself in a completely sterile enviroment for long periods of time is not the best for your immune system, which means in the event a germ ended up on your deliveroo order... |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
Reply to deg
@Lucifrost so youre against social distancing? maybe against masks too? its a pandemic desperate times calls for desperate measures
| @deg Again, you are free to isolate yourself in your own home, avoid any human contact, and wear all the mask you want |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
Nutella71 said: If that were that easy in real life, you wouldn't need people marching and pleading for rights centuries back. Right for women/people of colour to vote, same sex marriage, abortion...they are all covered in blood of those who fought for them. But in the modern world, you won't gain anything by making a public spectacle of yourself a.k.a. living the rights as true as you say (speaking from my position). You might make yourself an example, but also get thrown in jail, fined, marked for life, publicly ridiculed...and not many people want to risk their future for that. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. In this post, you've just made it clear that you don't believe in natural rights but in the religion of government and require its blessings to do anything, so you've just proven what I was saying. You even seem to believe voting makes any difference whatsoever. We live in completely different worlds, so there's not much to be said. |
Reply to NoelleIsSleepy
ehhhh... maybe not always equal. that makes it too easy to cover up racism, hate speech, etc by saying "it's my opinion".
| @Noelle43 I wouldn't say that cover up would work If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
Reply to Gween_Gween
@DigiCat I will put it more clearly, do you believe that some parts of global warming are a hoax because of bigger interests?
| @Gween_Gween I don't know, considering how people with those bigger interest midsets work, i wouldn't exclude that possibility |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
| Disagree? All opinions are equal and valid, as long as they're treated as just that: opinions The moment opinions are treated as facts, then some weigh much heavier than others. Some should also weigh much heavier than others as for them to not be drowned out by the loudest voices. I think a better question would be "should opinions be treated as fact, and should all have equal weight in that situation?" For me opinions are very much like feelings. So much in fact, that they're interchangable for me. |
 |
| Nah, Take you, for example: You're often wrong, self important, delusional or generally pretentious with your Threads and answers, on MaL. -Still, I think there has to be a place for you to speak your mind and say what you think. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, while also beein of no power, influence and/or worth. You saying something shouldn't be straight out disregarded, just because you're a bit of an idiot. |
 |
Reply to DigiCat
@Gween_Gween I don't know, considering how people with those bigger interest midsets work, i wouldn't exclude that possibility
| @DigiCat Glad to know that your climate change denialism is born out of an utter lack of common sense and contrarianism instead of an actual belief, because I remember damn well that you were reproducing global warming denial talking points when people were reporting factual information about rising temperatures. Anyway, your opinions there were wrong. Believing that the media reported temperatures higher than they are for some malicious purpose is wrong |
Reply to Merve2Love
Nah,
Take you, for example:
You're often wrong, self important, delusional or generally pretentious with your Threads and answers, on MaL.
-Still, I think there has to be a place for you to speak your mind and say what you think. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, while also beein of no power, influence and/or worth.
You saying something shouldn't be straight out disregarded, just because you're a bit of an idiot.
Take you, for example:
You're often wrong, self important, delusional or generally pretentious with your Threads and answers, on MaL.
-Still, I think there has to be a place for you to speak your mind and say what you think. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, while also beein of no power, influence and/or worth.
You saying something shouldn't be straight out disregarded, just because you're a bit of an idiot.
| @Merve2Love you always love drama eh and no more snark and passive aggression this time too you always go ad hominem on people on the forums and nothing more |
| You meant "No all opinions are equal and valid." It is well-known that your credibility is inversely proportional to the size of your tin foil hat collection. |
| google gemini says |
Reply to Gween_Gween
@DigiCat Glad to know that your climate change denialism is born out of an utter lack of common sense and contrarianism instead of an actual belief, because I remember damn well that you were reproducing global warming denial talking points when people were reporting factual information about rising temperatures. Anyway, your opinions there were wrong. Believing that the media reported temperatures higher than they are for some malicious purpose is wrong
| @Gween_Gween What denialism ezactly? All i said is i wouldn't exclude that there are people who would exagerate things for money, i never said i had proof of that. i never claimed it as fact, i said it's possible Gween_Gween said: Believing that the media reported temperatures higher than they are for some malicious purpose is wrong This here though is not an opinion, i was in the specific place the media was reporting on in that point of time, and what was reported did not match reality, that is fact, now i can't say if reports on the rest of the world were also inacurate cuz i was not there, but i'm not gonna exclude the possibility that they are considering they've proven they are capable of fabrication And what is the malicious purpose exactly? The media does that for clickbait, clickbait=money, it's not malicious, it's childish |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
Reply to Merve2Love
Nah,
Take you, for example:
You're often wrong, self important, delusional or generally pretentious with your Threads and answers, on MaL.
-Still, I think there has to be a place for you to speak your mind and say what you think. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, while also beein of no power, influence and/or worth.
You saying something shouldn't be straight out disregarded, just because you're a bit of an idiot.
Take you, for example:
You're often wrong, self important, delusional or generally pretentious with your Threads and answers, on MaL.
-Still, I think there has to be a place for you to speak your mind and say what you think. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, while also beein of no power, influence and/or worth.
You saying something shouldn't be straight out disregarded, just because you're a bit of an idiot.
| @Merve2Love lol well said. he's literally making the argument against human rights in this thread but has no self awareness whatsoever. @deg If your ideas are truly the better ones, then you shouldn't bother with those who are criticizing you right? Since they are the correct ones, they win out right? Unless, of course, the opinions of those who dissent matter to you... hmm. That creates an interesting paradox. No, but seriously, man, you can't expect to make a thread with such a high and mighty tone like this and not expect to get some people riffing on you for taking yourself too seriously. Either take the L or ignore it. |
DreamWindowFeb 13, 9:57 AM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| Everyone's opinion should be considered, deciding which is or isn't is deceptive as many things in society opinions create social progress, choosing is plain subjective full stop. |
| I voted “yes” in that poll. Some opinions can be as equally valid as other opinions due to the subjectivity of the topic/issue and there being technically no right or wrong answer, but there are also many opinions that are much more valid and carry a lot more weight than other opinions. Opinions rooted in falsehoods and misinformation for example, are some of the kinds of opinions that carry way less weight. Bad opinions exist, and experts/pros in all different kinds of fields exist as well. |
| I voted "no" in that poll. The definition of an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. The idea that you would trust the opinion of an expert over the layman is irrelevant as one opinion may be subjectively more reliable than the other but it does not make the other opinion less valid or not equal. An opinion is based on an individual's perspective and therefore to say an opinion is less valid or not equal to another is incorrect. I would agree that some opinions may be incorrect but the validity of the opinion cannot be questioned as person has an opinion and this opinion has met the requirements of what an opinion is. |
Reply to DreamWindow
@Merve2Love
lol well said. he's literally making the argument against human rights in this thread but has no self awareness whatsoever.
@deg If your ideas are truly the better ones, then you shouldn't bother with those who are criticizing you right? Since they are the correct ones, they win out right? Unless, of course, the opinions of those who dissent matter to you... hmm. That creates an interesting paradox.
No, but seriously, man, you can't expect to make a thread with such a high and mighty tone like this and not expect to get some people riffing on you for taking yourself too seriously. Either take the L or ignore it.
lol well said. he's literally making the argument against human rights in this thread but has no self awareness whatsoever.
@deg If your ideas are truly the better ones, then you shouldn't bother with those who are criticizing you right? Since they are the correct ones, they win out right? Unless, of course, the opinions of those who dissent matter to you... hmm. That creates an interesting paradox.
No, but seriously, man, you can't expect to make a thread with such a high and mighty tone like this and not expect to get some people riffing on you for taking yourself too seriously. Either take the L or ignore it.
| @DreamWindow nah that user is toxic to a lot of people on the forums especially to thread makers she loves drama |
Reply to DigiCat
@Noelle43 I wouldn't say that cover up would work
If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist
If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along
If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist
If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along
| @DigiCat aight fair I can accept that, you've got a point. but in that specific case I'd think they're an idiot for bringing race into it at all... people of all shapes and sizes are assholes and the moment you include race/ some other identity factor into your opinion you're making it seem like there's a correlation between being (blank) and being an asshole...... so it kinda comes across as racism anyway. |
| DRINK SOME WATER! FOOL!!! |
| Not all opinions are equal and valid to the greater discussion of something as there's large amounts of people who will dismiss something or not actually be knowledgeable in the subject. All opinions are valid to that person's mind and way of thinking though, as people are allowed to have whatever opinions they want. |
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow nah that user is toxic to a lot of people on the forums especially to thread makers she loves drama
| @deg If that's the case, then just ignore them. If it really is drama they are seeking, then why give it to them? I haven't seen a lot by this user, but there's no problem saying it like it is, if the situation calls for it. Nutella71 said: If that were that easy in real life, you wouldn't need people marching and pleading for rights centuries back. Right for women/people of colour to vote, same sex marriage, abortion...they are all covered in blood of those who fought for them. But in the modern world, you won't gain anything by making a public spectacle of yourself a.k.a. living the rights as true as you say (speaking from my position). You might make yourself an example, but also get thrown in jail, fined, marked for life, publicly ridiculed...and not many people want to risk their future for that. You are confusing natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights suggest that the each individual has ultimate sovereignty over their own life, body, and property, and can freely associate with whoever they choose, regardless of whatever their race, gender etc. is. This is counter to the civil "rights" that the state endows, as it suggests that in order for a right to be legitimate, it requires the force of the state to implement it, which is intrinsically counter to what natural rights are. Indeed, had the state not been there, those civil privileges that you mentioned would not have been necessary in the first place, and has been the sole reason why people only view civil "rights" as legitimate. |
DreamWindowFeb 13, 3:09 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
DigiCat said: If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along Of course that's still an opinion. Someone can have an opinion about a group of people. They can also have factually wrong and racist opinions. I have no idea how you even managed to come up with such a bizarre opinion that something magically becomes "not an opinion" if it's about a group of people instead of an individual, or if it's incorrect or racist. People hold opinions all the time that do not reflect reality. At any rate, here are some definitions of what an opinion is so that you hopefully will not make this embarrassing mistake again. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/opinion "a thought or belief about something or someone" (Again, it can also pertain to more than one thing or person. Sheesh...) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal" DigiCat said: you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours As for your constant horrendous spelling and grammar that make your posts look like they were written by a young child...I'm afraid nothing short of at least a few more years of English classes will save you that embarrassment. You even spelled equal as "equel" despite the word being in the thread title. Opinions involve thoughts and beliefs. Are all thoughts and beliefs equal and valid? Think about it. DigiCat said: This here though is not an opinion, i was in the specific place the media was reporting on in that point of time, and what was reported did not match reality, that is fact You ignored the "for some malicious purpose" part, and that is where your personal opinion comes in. In the case of the local temperature reporting you mentioned, it could have been mere incompetence on their part. Ranacchi said: All opinions are equal and valid, as long as they're treated as just that: opinions The moment opinions are treated as facts, then some weigh much heavier than others. Some should also weigh much heavier than others as for them to not be drowned out by the loudest voices. See above...and below. kusairo said: Some opinions can be as equally valid as other opinions due to the subjectivity of the topic/issue and there being technically no right or wrong answer, but there are also many opinions that are much more valid and carry a lot more weight than other opinions. Opinions rooted in falsehoods and misinformation for example, are some of the kinds of opinions that carry way less weight. Bad opinions exist, and experts/pros in all different kinds of fields exist as well. This guy gets it. (And I'm not sure how some others don't understand something so obvious.) K3V1N69 said: The definition of an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. The idea that you would trust the opinion of an expert over the layman is irrelevant as one opinion may be subjectively more reliable than the other but it does not make the other opinion less valid or not equal. An opinion is based on an individual's perspective and therefore to say an opinion is less valid or not equal to another is incorrect. I would agree that some opinions may be incorrect but the validity of the opinion cannot be questioned as person has an opinion and this opinion has met the requirements of what an opinion is. K3V1N69 said: People can have any opinion they want and they are all valid and equal due to the subjective nature and lack of fact or knowledge required. So you honestly think whether an opinion exists is the only factor in its validity or equality to other opinions? Well, here's my opinion: An opinion's existence (or the fact that someone is allowed or able to have an opinion) is not what makes it valid, and the existence of multiple opinions does not make them equal. The total number of opinions in existence are not equal in any way aside from the sheer fact that they are all opinions. They are certainly not all equally informed. It's ludicrous to think that the opinion of a flat Earth conspiracy theorist making up insane ideas about, say, astronomy is just as equal or valid as what a real astronomer thinks. I'm going to quote my original post, in case anyone missed it. SmugSatoko said: An informed opinion is more valid than an uninformed one. Ignorant (or even idiotic) opinions are not nearly as valid as (and certainly not equal to) well-informed opinions from those who spent years of their lives becoming knowledgeable about something. If you've only seen a single episode of anime, your opinions about anime are not worth much...certainly less than someone who has seen 10,000+ episodes. If you've only listened to a few songs in a music genre, your opinion about it is worthless compared to someone who has spent decades avidly listening to it, or even being a musician in the genre themselves. If you never bothered learning about astrophysics, your opinion on it is nil compared to an astrophysicist. You (as in anyone) are allowed to like and dislike whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will take your opinion seriously simply because you stated it. In many cases, the fact that someone holds a certain opinion proves they know little about the topic. |
SmugSatokoFeb 13, 3:01 PM
 |
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg If that's the case, then just ignore them. If it really is drama they are seeking, then why give it to them?
I haven't seen a lot by this user, but there's no problem saying it like it is, if the situation calls for it.
You are confusing natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights suggest that the each individual has ultimate sovereignty over their own life, body, and property, and can freely associate with whoever they choose, regardless of whatever their race, gender etc. is. This is counter to the civil "rights" that the state endows, as it suggests that in order for a right to be legitimate, it requires the force of the state to implement it, which is intrinsically counter to what natural rights are. Indeed, had the state not been there, those civil privileges that you mentioned would not have been necessary in the first place, and has been the sole reason why people only view civil "rights" as legitimate.
I haven't seen a lot by this user, but there's no problem saying it like it is, if the situation calls for it.
Nutella71 said:
If that were that easy in real life, you wouldn't need people marching and pleading for rights centuries back. Right for women/people of colour to vote, same sex marriage, abortion...they are all covered in blood of those who fought for them. But in the modern world, you won't gain anything by making a public spectacle of yourself a.k.a. living the rights as true as you say (speaking from my position). You might make yourself an example, but also get thrown in jail, fined, marked for life, publicly ridiculed...and not many people want to risk their future for that.
If that were that easy in real life, you wouldn't need people marching and pleading for rights centuries back. Right for women/people of colour to vote, same sex marriage, abortion...they are all covered in blood of those who fought for them. But in the modern world, you won't gain anything by making a public spectacle of yourself a.k.a. living the rights as true as you say (speaking from my position). You might make yourself an example, but also get thrown in jail, fined, marked for life, publicly ridiculed...and not many people want to risk their future for that.
You are confusing natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights suggest that the each individual has ultimate sovereignty over their own life, body, and property, and can freely associate with whoever they choose, regardless of whatever their race, gender etc. is. This is counter to the civil "rights" that the state endows, as it suggests that in order for a right to be legitimate, it requires the force of the state to implement it, which is intrinsically counter to what natural rights are. Indeed, had the state not been there, those civil privileges that you mentioned would not have been necessary in the first place, and has been the sole reason why people only view civil "rights" as legitimate.
| @DreamWindow fight or flight response trolling wants a fight response in most cases while flight is ignoring yes |
Reply to SmugSatoko
DigiCat said:
If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist
If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along
If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist
If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along
Of course that's still an opinion. Someone can have an opinion about a group of people. They can also have factually wrong and racist opinions.
I have no idea how you even managed to come up with such a bizarre opinion that something magically becomes "not an opinion" if it's about a group of people instead of an individual, or if it's incorrect or racist. People hold opinions all the time that do not reflect reality.
At any rate, here are some definitions of what an opinion is so that you hopefully will not make this embarrassing mistake again.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/opinion
"a thought or belief about something or someone" (Again, it can also pertain to more than one thing or person. Sheesh...)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion
"a personal view, attitude, or appraisal"
DigiCat said:
you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours
you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours
As for your constant horrendous spelling and grammar that make your posts look like they were written by a young child...I'm afraid nothing short of at least a few more years of English classes will save you that embarrassment. You even spelled equal as "equel" despite the word being in the thread title.
Opinions involve thoughts and beliefs. Are all thoughts and beliefs equal and valid? Think about it.
DigiCat said:
This here though is not an opinion, i was in the specific place the media was reporting on in that point of time, and what was reported did not match reality, that is fact
This here though is not an opinion, i was in the specific place the media was reporting on in that point of time, and what was reported did not match reality, that is fact
You ignored the "for some malicious purpose" part, and that is where your personal opinion comes in. In the case of the local temperature reporting you mentioned, it could have been mere incompetence on their part.
Ranacchi said:
All opinions are equal and valid, as long as they're treated as just that: opinions
The moment opinions are treated as facts, then some weigh much heavier than others. Some should also weigh much heavier than others as for them to not be drowned out by the loudest voices.
All opinions are equal and valid, as long as they're treated as just that: opinions
The moment opinions are treated as facts, then some weigh much heavier than others. Some should also weigh much heavier than others as for them to not be drowned out by the loudest voices.
See above...and below.
kusairo said:
Some opinions can be as equally valid as other opinions due to the subjectivity of the topic/issue and there being technically no right or wrong answer, but there are also many opinions that are much more valid and carry a lot more weight than other opinions. Opinions rooted in falsehoods and misinformation for example, are some of the kinds of opinions that carry way less weight. Bad opinions exist, and experts/pros in all different kinds of fields exist as well.
Some opinions can be as equally valid as other opinions due to the subjectivity of the topic/issue and there being technically no right or wrong answer, but there are also many opinions that are much more valid and carry a lot more weight than other opinions. Opinions rooted in falsehoods and misinformation for example, are some of the kinds of opinions that carry way less weight. Bad opinions exist, and experts/pros in all different kinds of fields exist as well.
This guy gets it. (And I'm not sure how some others don't understand something so obvious.)
K3V1N69 said:
The definition of an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The idea that you would trust the opinion of an expert over the layman is irrelevant as one opinion may be subjectively more reliable than the other but it does not make the other opinion less valid or not equal.
An opinion is based on an individual's perspective and therefore to say an opinion is less valid or not equal to another is incorrect.
I would agree that some opinions may be incorrect but the validity of the opinion cannot be questioned as person has an opinion and this opinion has met the requirements of what an opinion is.
The definition of an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The idea that you would trust the opinion of an expert over the layman is irrelevant as one opinion may be subjectively more reliable than the other but it does not make the other opinion less valid or not equal.
An opinion is based on an individual's perspective and therefore to say an opinion is less valid or not equal to another is incorrect.
I would agree that some opinions may be incorrect but the validity of the opinion cannot be questioned as person has an opinion and this opinion has met the requirements of what an opinion is.
K3V1N69 said:
People can have any opinion they want and they are all valid and equal due to the subjective nature and lack of fact or knowledge required.
People can have any opinion they want and they are all valid and equal due to the subjective nature and lack of fact or knowledge required.
So you honestly think whether an opinion exists is the only factor in its validity or equality to other opinions?
Well, here's my opinion: An opinion's existence (or the fact that someone is allowed or able to have an opinion) is not what makes it valid, and the existence of multiple opinions does not make them equal.
The total number of opinions in existence are not equal in any way aside from the sheer fact that they are all opinions. They are certainly not all equally informed.
It's ludicrous to think that the opinion of a flat Earth conspiracy theorist making up insane ideas about, say, astronomy is just as equal or valid as what a real astronomer thinks.
I'm going to quote my original post, in case anyone missed it.
SmugSatoko said:
An informed opinion is more valid than an uninformed one.
Ignorant (or even idiotic) opinions are not nearly as valid as (and certainly not equal to) well-informed opinions from those who spent years of their lives becoming knowledgeable about something.
If you've only seen a single episode of anime, your opinions about anime are not worth much...certainly less than someone who has seen 10,000+ episodes.
If you've only listened to a few songs in a music genre, your opinion about it is worthless compared to someone who has spent decades avidly listening to it, or even being a musician in the genre themselves.
If you never bothered learning about astrophysics, your opinion on it is nil compared to an astrophysicist.
You (as in anyone) are allowed to like and dislike whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will take your opinion seriously simply because you stated it. In many cases, the fact that someone holds a certain opinion proves they know little about the topic.
An informed opinion is more valid than an uninformed one.
Ignorant (or even idiotic) opinions are not nearly as valid as (and certainly not equal to) well-informed opinions from those who spent years of their lives becoming knowledgeable about something.
If you've only seen a single episode of anime, your opinions about anime are not worth much...certainly less than someone who has seen 10,000+ episodes.
If you've only listened to a few songs in a music genre, your opinion about it is worthless compared to someone who has spent decades avidly listening to it, or even being a musician in the genre themselves.
If you never bothered learning about astrophysics, your opinion on it is nil compared to an astrophysicist.
You (as in anyone) are allowed to like and dislike whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will take your opinion seriously simply because you stated it. In many cases, the fact that someone holds a certain opinion proves they know little about the topic.
| @SmugSatoko "Well, here's my opinion: An opinion's existence (or the fact that someone is allowed or able to have an opinion) is not what makes it valid, and the existence of multiple opinions does not make them equal." This is an opinion of yours which is valid and equal to mine which is the complete opposite of what you have said. You can choose to believe what you want based on anything you want. Your argument about a person watching one episode of anime having an opinion being worthless compared to someone who has watched 10k is in and of itself an opinion you have.I could argue the case that a person that has less exposure to anime wouldn't have a clouded view of the show and therefore have a better opinion. Your astrophysicist argument is an interesting one where of course the qualified person will have an opinion that has more value and will be more accurate. You can even dismiss an opinion from someone that has not studied astrophysics as their opinion will just be factually incorrect and irrelevant. However, the opinion that they have is still valid and equal to any other opinion as all opinions are are subjective to the each individual's perspective. An example, if someone is looking at at a car and gives me their opinion that it looks old and another person looks at the car and says that it looks new, they both have different opinions based on their own view. Both statements are valid and equal in this case as the opinion meets the requirements of what an opinion is. This does not automatically mean their opinion is correct or appropriate. I think the confusion comes from the fact that we use opinions in two different ways. There are questions that have no absolute answer like what tastes better chocolate or sweets? This is pure opinion with no fact to base a decision on. Then there are factual questions like can we move to mars and live there in the next 3 years? There is no debate here and no alternate fact and no opinion can be had. If you said yes i belive humans will live on mars this year, then you are making a statement of fact (incorrectly) and not an making an opinion. |
| By their basic nature, opinions are equal. Although, by their specified nature, so by going with intellectual weight and validity, they are not equal by any means. We can point out that opinions contain a smaller or bigger dose of subjectivity, but it wouldn't be wise to imply that because of that an opinion on, let's say, loose astrophysics-related stuff shared by an actual astrophysicist is equal to random shower thoughts shared by, say, a local, uneducated drunkard, just because the two of them are opinions. They are from different leagues and shouldn't, bah, mustn't be treated as equal or equally valid. If we want to go onward and develop as a human civilization, then respecting scholars or people actually informed on certain topics is crucial. That includes also respecting their comments on the fields they are good at or respected for their contribution to them. Otherwise, we will turn science and knowledge into barbaric parody, where intellectualists are disregarded by default by folks whose knowledge is vastly inferior. We can see a glimpse of it in social media, though fortunately it ain't present in scientific institutions. Imagine all those tinfoil hat enjoyers taking over universities and research centers, lol. |
Reply to DreamWindow
@Merve2Love
lol well said. he's literally making the argument against human rights in this thread but has no self awareness whatsoever.
@deg If your ideas are truly the better ones, then you shouldn't bother with those who are criticizing you right? Since they are the correct ones, they win out right? Unless, of course, the opinions of those who dissent matter to you... hmm. That creates an interesting paradox.
No, but seriously, man, you can't expect to make a thread with such a high and mighty tone like this and not expect to get some people riffing on you for taking yourself too seriously. Either take the L or ignore it.
lol well said. he's literally making the argument against human rights in this thread but has no self awareness whatsoever.
@deg If your ideas are truly the better ones, then you shouldn't bother with those who are criticizing you right? Since they are the correct ones, they win out right? Unless, of course, the opinions of those who dissent matter to you... hmm. That creates an interesting paradox.
No, but seriously, man, you can't expect to make a thread with such a high and mighty tone like this and not expect to get some people riffing on you for taking yourself too seriously. Either take the L or ignore it.
| @DreamWindow Don't be too harsh on the guy^^ Only a teenager would actually even argue this point without beeing kind of emberassed about it xD...Guess he's just young. Hope he is. If not ...this is a bit....well.... |
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
DigiCat said:
If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist
If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along
If someone says "all people of x race are a-holes" that's not an opinion (as much as they would claim it is) that is both factually wrong and racist
If someone says "that person of x race is an a-hole" that can be an opinion, it's what they think of one specific person who could either be an a-hole or seem that way to that person cuz they don't get along
Of course that's still an opinion. Someone can have an opinion about a group of people. They can also have factually wrong and racist opinions.
I have no idea how you even managed to come up with such a bizarre opinion that something magically becomes "not an opinion" if it's about a group of people instead of an individual, or if it's incorrect or racist. People hold opinions all the time that do not reflect reality.
At any rate, here are some definitions of what an opinion is so that you hopefully will not make this embarrassing mistake again.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/opinion
"a thought or belief about something or someone" (Again, it can also pertain to more than one thing or person. Sheesh...)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion
"a personal view, attitude, or appraisal"
DigiCat said:
you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours
you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours
As for your constant horrendous spelling and grammar that make your posts look like they were written by a young child...I'm afraid nothing short of at least a few more years of English classes will save you that embarrassment. You even spelled equal as "equel" despite the word being in the thread title.
Opinions involve thoughts and beliefs. Are all thoughts and beliefs equal and valid? Think about it.
DigiCat said:
This here though is not an opinion, i was in the specific place the media was reporting on in that point of time, and what was reported did not match reality, that is fact
This here though is not an opinion, i was in the specific place the media was reporting on in that point of time, and what was reported did not match reality, that is fact
You ignored the "for some malicious purpose" part, and that is where your personal opinion comes in. In the case of the local temperature reporting you mentioned, it could have been mere incompetence on their part.
Ranacchi said:
All opinions are equal and valid, as long as they're treated as just that: opinions
The moment opinions are treated as facts, then some weigh much heavier than others. Some should also weigh much heavier than others as for them to not be drowned out by the loudest voices.
All opinions are equal and valid, as long as they're treated as just that: opinions
The moment opinions are treated as facts, then some weigh much heavier than others. Some should also weigh much heavier than others as for them to not be drowned out by the loudest voices.
See above...and below.
kusairo said:
Some opinions can be as equally valid as other opinions due to the subjectivity of the topic/issue and there being technically no right or wrong answer, but there are also many opinions that are much more valid and carry a lot more weight than other opinions. Opinions rooted in falsehoods and misinformation for example, are some of the kinds of opinions that carry way less weight. Bad opinions exist, and experts/pros in all different kinds of fields exist as well.
Some opinions can be as equally valid as other opinions due to the subjectivity of the topic/issue and there being technically no right or wrong answer, but there are also many opinions that are much more valid and carry a lot more weight than other opinions. Opinions rooted in falsehoods and misinformation for example, are some of the kinds of opinions that carry way less weight. Bad opinions exist, and experts/pros in all different kinds of fields exist as well.
This guy gets it. (And I'm not sure how some others don't understand something so obvious.)
K3V1N69 said:
The definition of an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The idea that you would trust the opinion of an expert over the layman is irrelevant as one opinion may be subjectively more reliable than the other but it does not make the other opinion less valid or not equal.
An opinion is based on an individual's perspective and therefore to say an opinion is less valid or not equal to another is incorrect.
I would agree that some opinions may be incorrect but the validity of the opinion cannot be questioned as person has an opinion and this opinion has met the requirements of what an opinion is.
The definition of an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The idea that you would trust the opinion of an expert over the layman is irrelevant as one opinion may be subjectively more reliable than the other but it does not make the other opinion less valid or not equal.
An opinion is based on an individual's perspective and therefore to say an opinion is less valid or not equal to another is incorrect.
I would agree that some opinions may be incorrect but the validity of the opinion cannot be questioned as person has an opinion and this opinion has met the requirements of what an opinion is.
K3V1N69 said:
People can have any opinion they want and they are all valid and equal due to the subjective nature and lack of fact or knowledge required.
People can have any opinion they want and they are all valid and equal due to the subjective nature and lack of fact or knowledge required.
So you honestly think whether an opinion exists is the only factor in its validity or equality to other opinions?
Well, here's my opinion: An opinion's existence (or the fact that someone is allowed or able to have an opinion) is not what makes it valid, and the existence of multiple opinions does not make them equal.
The total number of opinions in existence are not equal in any way aside from the sheer fact that they are all opinions. They are certainly not all equally informed.
It's ludicrous to think that the opinion of a flat Earth conspiracy theorist making up insane ideas about, say, astronomy is just as equal or valid as what a real astronomer thinks.
I'm going to quote my original post, in case anyone missed it.
SmugSatoko said:
An informed opinion is more valid than an uninformed one.
Ignorant (or even idiotic) opinions are not nearly as valid as (and certainly not equal to) well-informed opinions from those who spent years of their lives becoming knowledgeable about something.
If you've only seen a single episode of anime, your opinions about anime are not worth much...certainly less than someone who has seen 10,000+ episodes.
If you've only listened to a few songs in a music genre, your opinion about it is worthless compared to someone who has spent decades avidly listening to it, or even being a musician in the genre themselves.
If you never bothered learning about astrophysics, your opinion on it is nil compared to an astrophysicist.
You (as in anyone) are allowed to like and dislike whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will take your opinion seriously simply because you stated it. In many cases, the fact that someone holds a certain opinion proves they know little about the topic.
An informed opinion is more valid than an uninformed one.
Ignorant (or even idiotic) opinions are not nearly as valid as (and certainly not equal to) well-informed opinions from those who spent years of their lives becoming knowledgeable about something.
If you've only seen a single episode of anime, your opinions about anime are not worth much...certainly less than someone who has seen 10,000+ episodes.
If you've only listened to a few songs in a music genre, your opinion about it is worthless compared to someone who has spent decades avidly listening to it, or even being a musician in the genre themselves.
If you never bothered learning about astrophysics, your opinion on it is nil compared to an astrophysicist.
You (as in anyone) are allowed to like and dislike whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will take your opinion seriously simply because you stated it. In many cases, the fact that someone holds a certain opinion proves they know little about the topic.
SmugSatoko said: Of course that's still an opinion. Someone can have an opinion about a group of people. They can also have factually wrong and racist opinions Like i said to deg, there is a difference between fact and opinion, if something is factually wrong, it is wrong plain and simple, doesn't matter if you think it's right or claim it's your opinion, that's like saying "my opinion is 2+2=5" SmugSatoko said: As for your constant horrendous spelling and grammar that make your posts look like they were written by a young child...I'm afraid nothing short of at least a few more years of English classes will save you that embarrassment. You even spelled equal as "equel" despite the word being in the thread title Yes thanks, i am aware that my dyslexic ass spelling skills are worse than those of a primary school kid and i faild grammer SmugSatoko said: You ignored the "for some malicious purpose" part, and that is where your personal opinion comes in. In the case of the local temperature reporting you mentioned, it could have been mere incompetence on their part I infact never mentioned the media having malicious purposes, and you're right, incompetence could be be a reason for the inacurate reports I also did not leave that bit out DigiCat said: And what is the malicious purpose exactly? The media does that for clickbait, clickbait=money, it's not malicious, it's childish This part here is of course not fact, but having worked in entertainment media, i know the exageration of things is often used to get ratings, hence clickbait, people click on it or switch to that TV channel or pick up the paper with that headline, more people = more ratings = more money, so along with incompetence it's also a very valid possibility |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
Reply to Merve2Love
@DreamWindow
Don't be too harsh on the guy^^
Only a teenager would actually even argue this point without beeing kind of emberassed about it xD...Guess he's just young. Hope he is. If not ...this is a bit....well....
Don't be too harsh on the guy^^
Only a teenager would actually even argue this point without beeing kind of emberassed about it xD...Guess he's just young. Hope he is. If not ...this is a bit....well....
| @Merve2Love He's like 40 or something isn't he? |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
DigiCat said: Like i said to deg, there is a difference between fact and opinion, if something is factually wrong, it is wrong plain and simple, doesn't matter if you think it's right or claim it's your opinion, that's like saying "my opinion is 2+2=5" Even after I quoted definitions of what an opinion is, you still don't get it. At its most basic, an opinion is simply a thought, belief or judgment about something. (There are other more detailed definitions, of course...but whichever one you're using is so narrow as to be dubious.) Opinions can be wrong. If opinions were required to be correct, that would invalidate the entire concept of having an opinion. Opinions can also be factual, with supporting evidence and logic. It's not a mutually exclusive phenomenon. You can even have an opinion that is technically factual, but still ultimately incorrect or misleading because it consists of cherry-picked facts while ignoring other facts. How true or false an opinion is has no bearing on the fact that it is an opinion held by someone...but it can determine how valid (in the sense of accuracy) it is. "2 + 2 = 5" is an example of both a factually incorrect statement and an invalid opinion. Using the example about all people of a certain race (or whatever) being assholes...what asshole even means is subjective, so you could just as well say everyone is an asshole in their own way. (Which would by extension apply to the prior statement.) Personally, I would just call such sweeping generalizations bad opinions stemming from ignorance. You could also call it an invalid, untrue opinion with poor reasoning. Yes thanks, i am aware that my dyslexic ass spelling skills are worse than those of a primary school kid and i faild grammer If you're legitimately dyslexic, perhaps I was too harsh on you. You do get your points across just fine, and I often agree with you, for what it's worth. DigiCat said: This here though is not an opinion Believing it was done for a malicious purpose is an opinion. Even if it is later demonstrated to be true or false, that doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion held. I think the confusion here is that words can mean multiple things. When someone says something is a fact and not a matter of opinion, they are using a more specific definition of opinion than the broad one. You can distinguish between fact and opinion for simplicity's sake...but you can also acknowledge that opinions can be on a spectrum with slivers of truth and falsehood. There's a lot more to opinions than things like personal preference. So basically, something can be "not a matter of opinion" in the stricter sense, yet people can still have opinions on it in the broader sense. I wish language was more specific so we wouldn't have to specify so often which definitions we're using, but what can ya do... |
SmugSatokoFeb 13, 5:30 PM
|
Reply to SmugSatoko
DigiCat said:
Like i said to deg, there is a difference between fact and opinion, if something is factually wrong, it is wrong plain and simple, doesn't matter if you think it's right or claim it's your opinion, that's like saying "my opinion is 2+2=5"
Like i said to deg, there is a difference between fact and opinion, if something is factually wrong, it is wrong plain and simple, doesn't matter if you think it's right or claim it's your opinion, that's like saying "my opinion is 2+2=5"
Even after I quoted definitions of what an opinion is, you still don't get it. At its most basic, an opinion is simply a thought, belief or judgment about something. (There are other more detailed definitions, of course...but whichever one you're using is so narrow as to be dubious.)
Opinions can be wrong. If opinions were required to be correct, that would invalidate the entire concept of having an opinion.
Opinions can also be factual, with supporting evidence and logic. It's not a mutually exclusive phenomenon. You can even have an opinion that is technically factual, but still ultimately incorrect or misleading because it consists of cherry-picked facts while ignoring other facts.
How true or false an opinion is has no bearing on the fact that it is an opinion held by someone...but it can determine how valid (in the sense of accuracy) it is. "2 + 2 = 5" is an example of both a factually incorrect statement and an invalid opinion.
Using the example about all people of a certain race (or whatever) being assholes...what asshole even means is subjective, so you could just as well say everyone is an asshole in their own way. (Which would by extension apply to the prior statement.) Personally, I would just call such sweeping generalizations bad opinions stemming from ignorance. You could also call it an invalid, untrue opinion with poor reasoning.
Yes thanks, i am aware that my dyslexic ass spelling skills are worse than those of a primary school kid and i faild grammer
If you're legitimately dyslexic, perhaps I was too harsh on you. You do get your points across just fine, and I often agree with you, for what it's worth.
DigiCat said:
This here though is not an opinion
This here though is not an opinion
Believing it was done for a malicious purpose is an opinion. Even if it is later demonstrated to be true or false, that doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion held.
I think the confusion here is that words can mean multiple things. When someone says something is a fact and not a matter of opinion, they are using a more specific definition of opinion than the broad one. You can distinguish between fact and opinion for simplicity's sake...but you can also acknowledge that opinions can be on a spectrum with slivers of truth and falsehood. There's a lot more to opinions than things like personal preference.
So basically, something can be "not a matter of opinion" in the stricter sense, yet people can still have opinions on it in the broader sense.
I wish language was more specific so we wouldn't have to specify so often which definitions we're using, but what can ya do...
SmugSatoko said: Opinions can be wrong. If opinions were required to be correct, that would invalidate the entire concept of having an opinion I honestly don't get where you're getting this from, where did i ever say all opinions are required to be correct? The only thing i've said on repetion whenever OP brings this subject up is that opinions are neither right nor wrong SmugSatoko said: Believing it was done for a malicious purpose is an opinion. Even if it is later demonstrated to be true or false, that doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion held Again, i never mentioned beliving the media's intentions were malicios, those are Gween's words, not mine SmugSatoko said: but you can also acknowledge that opinions can be on a spectrum with slivers of truth and falsehood. There's a lot more to opinions than things like personal preference This i agree with SmugSatoko said: So basically, something can be "not a matter of opinion" in the stricter sense, yet people can still have opinions on it in the broader sense And this is what i meant with this line (maybe i didn't get the point across that well the way i worded it, you're the 2nd person who mentions this to me) DigiCat said: there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however |
| What debating with DigiCat is like according to APolygons2 That's why I thought a discussion would be pointless. It doesn't feel like a debate. It feels like I'm playing chess and somehow lose to an uno reverse card after loosing all my monopoly money lol |
DigiCat said: I honestly don't get where you're getting this from, where did i ever say all opinions are required to be correct? I never said you did. The only thing i've said on repetion whenever OP brings this subject up is that opinions are neither right nor wrong Using the definitions I provided from actual dictionaries, opinions can be right, wrong, or neither right nor wrong, since an opinion is simply a thought someone has about something. That's why I said you are using a stricter definition; one that makes the distinction between factual matters and things that involve more subjective things like preference. Just bear in mind that when people talk about opinions, they may be using the broader meaning instead. Again, i never mentioned beliving the media's intentions were malicios, those are Gween's words, not mine I thought you were suggesting that claiming their intentions are malicious would not qualify as an opinion. My mistake. Looks like you were only referring to the other part of the statement. |
|
More topics from this board
Poll: » is marriage compulsory? ( 1 2 )FruitPunchBaka - May 10 |
88 |
by WaffleMaster89
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» What are you insecure about the most?Ejrodiew - Apr 30 |
39 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
53 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » is going back in time possible?FruitPunchBaka - Today |
16 |
by Ex-Aid
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
812 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Many COVID experts in Japan harassed after speaking to media, survey showsMeusnier - May 22 |
16 |
by SuperAdventure
»»
4 hours ago |