First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
"That's just your opinion!"
18243 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Mars, Mt. Olympus
Offline
Posted 9/24/13
"just your opinion" <--- COP OUUTTTTT
23932 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/24/13 , edited 9/24/13

Spomyjiny wrote:

I just had this conversation this morning with my friends in school...

The topic was music, and they kept going on how metal is such a bad genre (which is infuriating to me because I love metal, and they really haven't listened to any metal). The only thing I heard from their side is that metal is just "screamo music" and they bash about how "crap" the composition of each songs. And all I do is just ignore them, thinking about how dumb they are


Oh flashbacks to middle school. I used to argue back and forth, they said my metal was just screamo crap just like you. I felt so passionately about it back then...And now I don't even listen to metal.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 9/24/13
Blue can be the best and worst color. There is no requirement for a binary choice between the two, especially when blue is being compared to other items on a basis of some value on a scale.

Say I have some set of things with an assigned associated value {A = 1, B = 1, C =1, D=2, E=0}

Then D > A = B = C > E In this case, D is the best and E is the worst.

Now change the set so D = 1 and E =1 so that {A =1, B=1, C=1, D=1, E=1}
Then A=B=C=D=E So that none are better than any others and each are the "Best" and "Worst" or none are the "Best" and "Worst" This example demonstrates the possibility for an Item "Blue" to assume a value outside "The best color" and "not the best color"

If you don't like that, I can try a different approach.

B can assume the values {0, 1, 2}
A can assume the values {0, 1, 2}
The sets they can make together is {0,0} {1,0} {2,0} {0,1} {1,1} {2,1} {0,2} {1,2} {2,2}
If A and B are allowed to assume any of the three values arbitrarily there are three cases where A = B, three cases where A > B and three cases where B > A. Without knowing what the values of A and B are, is B "The Best" or "Not the Best?"

Anyways.... I believe the original topic was about wanting to commit genocide because they use the phrases "that's just your opinion" and "Everybody has different tastes" as if they were obviously true.

I will start by saying that genocide is bad. Don't commit genocide.

The current discussion on the phrase "That's just your opinion" seems to be partially stuck on defining what an opinion is, despite various attempts to rectify that situation. I would attempt to define an opinion as a belief that a person holds on a particular topic without regard to a truth on the topic. That definition probably fails miserably, but the concept is vague anyways. I will also assert that a false fact is not a fact because facts are true. All facts are generally held assumptions that have been verified and if tested again will continue to be verified unless something changes. Europe exists, you think this because people tell you it does. If you go to Europe, it will be there. The moon exists. You know this because you can watch it come up every non-new moon night.

Knowing how people get opinions seems to be a good idea in understanding why a person would use the phrase "That's just your opinion" as an argument. For simplicity I will assume everybody is born with the same basic neural stuff. I assume that I can represent a person's brain like a really big tic-tac-toe board, or rather, a three dimensional collection of finite-length lines. So if an input is applied to one endpoint of a line, some type of signal will travel along the line to the intersection of itself and two of the several other lines before moving somewhere else and eventually hitting another endpoint. The path the signal takes helps determine the next state of the system and the output of the system. Repeated inputs will configure the lattice structure to favor some paths over others and that structure ultimately determines the thoughts, actions, and preferences of the corresponding person.

So, basically, input -> black box -> output

The black box in the center assigns some value to whatever concept you may be discussing, and the reaction "That's just your opinion" is a result of some application of stimuli that prompted it. As I assume that an opinion is a belief held by some person regarding the truth of something, I think I can guess that the two people were discussing something that they do not share the same opinion on. I also do not think that the two of them adequately communicated the process they used to achieve whatever "opinion" they had. As a result of their brains being determined by previous inputs, they both could have vastly different criteria for evaluating said object, resulting in different outputs. Determining a valid method of quantifying the traits of the object may be the solution to avoiding this "opinion." However, whatever common method is chosen for evaluating the object must be agreed upon by all parties, or the issue will simply remain a issue of poor communication.

"Everybody has different Tastes"
Tastes are determined by the magical lattice of neural determination. What matters are the inputs and how the black box has been configured to respond. Example: sugar tastes sweet because of glucose or fructose, when somebody eats sugar, a chemical reaction occurs that triggers something to trigger something to hit the brain with an input that will probably result in that person wanting more. If the person eats the sugar and subsequently becomes ill due to food poisoning, they will likely not like sugar as much anymore.

There will be a spectrum of tastes with varying degrees of how much each person likes each specific thing. While it may be true that the basic needs, wants, and desires are hardwired, any individual can vary considerably from another depending on what previous experiences the two have had. The person with a positive experience will probably favor, the person with a negative experience will probably avoid. Without knowing that a specific configuration will always arise, it is not true to state that all people will have that configuration.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13 , edited 9/25/13

deli8079 wrote:



Lol, its like you simultaneously do and don't understand my post. Anyway to answer your qustions:
"So you're defining an opinion as any claim that makes a logical contradiction possible?" No, I'm saying that the statement and the logical negative of the statement is an opinion if both can be rationalized, big difference. Since your a math person you should see it being a specific subset of all types of opinions.


Surely then, anything can be rationalized. I might rationalize that life is sufficiently convenient for me that it must have been designed to accommodate me, and that as a result, I must be a brain in a jar receiving false perceptions and information, which means that Europe as I know it is just an illusion to me. Thus, Europe doesn't exist. If all I need is a rationale for two contradictory remarks, then I feel as though any claim can be an opinion.


"Blue is the best color, logical negative = blue is not the best color:
Blue cannot be simultaneously the best color and not the best color, therefore the statement "Blue is the best color" is not an opinion."
This is an opinion because 'blue is the best color' can be rationalized as well as 'blue is the worst color'. I can say blue is the best color because it has a strong calming effect or I could say blue is the worst color because it is too bright and bland. When you rationalize you give a reason for something, that is literally all rationalization is; similar to logical thinking but not bound by logical thinking.

"The way I define "rationalize" would say that someone could rationalize that some people might think blue is the best, and some people might not " Yes, people can rationalize either way and come to different conclusions. As long as they can come up with a reason for their conclusion it is rationalized.


Fair enough. Ignoring that "not best" is not equivalent to "worst" (I get what you mean), the "best" in the first case means something different than the "best" in the second case. In the first, you've said that "the best color" is equivalent to "the most calming color." In the second case, the best color is equivalent to the "least bright and bland." When you say "blue is the best color," all you're really saying is that "thing x" has "property P." Blue has the property of being the best. However, the property that blue has in your first rationalization is different than the property that blue has in your second rationalization. If someone asks me which chess piece I most resemble, I might answer "I am the King." But if someone asks me why people aren't paid more I might answer with "why are you asking me? I am not the King." In this case "I am the King" is not contradictory to "I am not the King" because what we are talking about when we say "King" is a different thing in each of the examples. The only way that we can measure whether two statements are contradictory is if all the terms are the same. In the case of "blue is the best color" your rationalizations aren't contradictory because the components of the statements don't refer to the same properties.


Your statement that opinions are either right or wrong does not logically follow because right and wrong most closely concern facts. Facts can be ' right' or 'wrong' because facts imply a sort of metric which can be checked as either right or wrong. Consider "1 + 1" therefore "2". Regardless of what the symbols mean, that proposition can either be true or false; here all we are trying to say is that the proposition (1+1) implies the conclusion (2). That implication can either be right or wrong meaning the 'fact' that 1+1=2 can be right or wrong. notice that it is the IMPLICATION that is either right or wrong and not exactly the value 2 or 1+1. Those don't have any truth value at all you can't logically say, "2 is true" that makes no sense because you are giving a conclusion without a proposition.


Agreed, I've actually written almost the exact same thing as a reply to someone else, except I used "chicken is correct" as an example of something that didn't make sense.


When people give their opinions it is just the conclusion of their rationale. "rationale" therefore "opinion".


So, equivalently "not opinion" implies "not rationale." Only opinions have reasons?


That is the same exact logical form as before and again, the opinion has no inherent value. So if I say I like the color blue, the 'opinion' has no truth value; you can't say that the opinion is true or false. You could say that the fact I like the color blue is true; but this is all just rhetoric, and people do not talk using formal logic, definitions, etc. So unless they are speaking/writing formally it makes no sense to be literal towards what people say. I'll use it ironically and say, "You know what I mean."


Might I ask why "I like the color blue" has no truth value? It seems as though all this means is that "blue" has the property of "being liked by me", and if we know what is meant by "being liked by me" then it can only either have a true or false output. You might say that it makes no sense to be literal towards what people say, but if people use "that's just your opinion" as a literal counterpoint, then I am going to pose a literal criticism.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13 , edited 9/25/13

Nobodyofimportance wrote:

Blue can be the best and worst color. There is no requirement for a binary choice between the two, especially when blue is being compared to other items on a basis of some value on a scale.

Say I have some set of things with an assigned associated value {A = 1, B = 1, C =1, D=2, E=0}

Then D > A = B = C > E In this case, D is the best and E is the worst.

Now change the set so D = 1 and E =1 so that {A =1, B=1, C=1, D=1, E=1}
Then A=B=C=D=E So that none are better than any others and each are the "Best" and "Worst" or none are the "Best" and "Worst" This example demonstrates the possibility for an Item "Blue" to assume a value outside "The best color" and "not the best color"


Yeah, except as you said, we're talking about two different sets. The element "blue" does not assume two different values at the same time. In one set it is the best and in another set it is not the best. You can't just claim that two elements are the same because you used the same variable to denote them. D1=2 =/= 1=D2 is more appropriate. Blue never assumes a value outside of "the best" and "not the best".


If you don't like that, I can try a different approach.

B can assume the values {0, 1, 2}
A can assume the values {0, 1, 2}
The sets they can make together is {0,0} {1,0} {2,0} {0,1} {1,1} {2,1} {0,2} {1,2} {2,2}
If A and B are allowed to assume any of the three values arbitrarily there are three cases where A = B, three cases where A > B and three cases where B > A. Without knowing what the values of A and B are, is B "The Best" or "Not the Best?"


I assume that, in both of your examples, "The Best" value is the greatest value? If so, then as you said, there are three cases where A>B, three cases where B>A and three where A=B. There are zero cases where A is simultaneously greater than, less than, and equal to B; and there are zero cases where it takes a value other than "greatest" or "not greatest." However, If you change the problem to:

B is the set {0,1,2}
A is the set {0,1,2}

Then we can easily see that A=B, or if you like -- they are the same set.


Anyways.... I believe the original topic was about wanting to commit genocide because they use the phrases "that's just your opinion" and "Everybody has different tastes" as if they were obviously true.

I will start by saying that genocide is bad. Don't commit genocide.

The current discussion on the phrase "That's just your opinion" seems to be partially stuck on defining what an opinion is, despite various attempts to rectify that situation. I would attempt to define an opinion as a belief that a person holds on a particular topic without regard to a truth on the topic. That definition probably fails miserably, but the concept is vague anyways. I will also assert that a false fact is not a fact because facts are true.


That's different than the way that I've seen logicians/philosophers use the word fact, but your definition is no less correct. But you're right. Unfortunately the only way we can communicate here is with words, and when the key words have so many different uses, the crux of the discussion does basically turn into a discussion about what they hell we're all talking about.





I agree with most of this, but why or how a person comes to a conclusion does not affect the truth of the conclusion.


"Everybody has different Tastes"
Tastes are determined by the magical lattice of neural determination. What matters are the inputs and how the black box has been configured to respond. Example: sugar tastes sweet because of glucose or fructose, when somebody eats sugar, a chemical reaction occurs that triggers something to trigger something to hit the brain with an input that will probably result in that person wanting more. If the person eats the sugar and subsequently becomes ill due to food poisoning, they will likely not like sugar as much anymore.

There will be a spectrum of tastes with varying degrees of how much each person likes each specific thing. While it may be true that the basic needs, wants, and desires are hardwired, any individual can vary considerably from another depending on what previous experiences the two have had. The person with a positive experience will probably favor, the person with a negative experience will probably avoid. Without knowing that a specific configuration will always arise, it is not true to state that all people will have that configuration.


I probably should have just left this out of the original post. I only really want to discuss the phrase "that's just your opinion" -- I even left it out of the topic title. I mentioned it because there is a lot of overlap between truth in subjective viewpoints and Taste. A good portion does have to do with the brain, and I find your analysis mostly agreeable. However, I don't really want to discuss my viewpoint on the phrase for two reasons:

First, it would take a lot of work -- work that I don't have the time to put in. Secondly, I'm not even entirely convinced myself that everybody does or does not have different tastes. My knowledge of the logic behind each position is unsatisfactory, so I don't actually have an opinion on the matter. However, I mentioned it because I find that, regardless of whether it's true or not, it dampens meaningful discussion.

At the very least, I'm pretty convinced that some people do have the same taste. At the very least, it's almost completely obvious that there is overlap between everyone's taste. Given that you know a person in his entirety, I would almost guarantee that you can find a common taste. Again, I don't have much to back this up, which is why I said that I didn't want to argue it in the last two paragraphs. But, now I'm thinking that if I wanted to bring it up, I should probably give some sort of reason for thinking it.
24614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

theYchromosome wrote:

Might I ask why "I like the color blue" has no truth value? It seems as though all this means is that "blue" has the property of "being liked by me", and if we know what is meant by "being liked by me" then it can only either have a true or false output. You might say that it makes no sense to be literal towards what people say, but if people use "that's just your opinion" as a literal counterpoint, then I am going to pose a literal criticism.
"I like the color blue" has plenty of subjective truth value, just no objective truth value. Both subjective truth and objective truth are meaningful. The fact that you like the color blue means that you can compare its subjective worth with other peoples subjective values, as well as to know whats important to you. It can help you communicate with others that also like the color blue of things they might enjoy looking at that you have seen. It is truth that you like the color blue and if others share the same subjective truth you can share it with them.

Subjective truth is important its just a different thing than objective truth. If someone asks you to show them something blue and you show them something blue it will be objectively true, however if somebody asks you to show them something they will like, showing them something blue might not get the same reaction as you as its only subjectively true. The strength of objective and subjective truths is in using them in tandem. If you know that somebody shares your like of blue, or know they dislike it unlike you, you can use that to help you find something they might like when they ask you to find something that they might like. If they like blue you can find them something that you like that is also blue and try that out, or if they dislike blue, you could do your best to find something that you like for reasons other than being blue.

Objective truth is the stable solid ground upon which we build our own subjective truths and the meeting point for which we can compare our own subjective truths with others.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

AsahinaInu wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:

Might I ask why "I like the color blue" has no truth value? It seems as though all this means is that "blue" has the property of "being liked by me", and if we know what is meant by "being liked by me" then it can only either have a true or false output. You might say that it makes no sense to be literal towards what people say, but if people use "that's just your opinion" as a literal counterpoint, then I am going to pose a literal criticism.
"I like the color blue" has plenty of subjective truth value, just no objective truth value. Both subjective truth and objective truth are meaningful. The fact that you like the color blue means that you can compare its subjective worth with other peoples subjective values, as well as to know whats important to you. It can help you communicate with others that also like the color blue of things they might enjoy looking at that you have seen. It is truth that you like the color blue and if others share the same subjective truth you can share it with them.

Subjective truth is important its just a different thing than objective truth. If someone asks you to show them something blue and you show them something blue it will be objectively true, however if somebody asks you to show them something they will like, showing them something blue might not get the same reaction as you as its only subjectively true. The strength of objective and subjective truths is in using them in tandem. If you know that somebody shares your like of blue, or know they dislike it unlike you, you can use that to help you find something they might like when they ask you to find something that they might like. If they like blue you can find them something that you like that is also blue and try that out, or if they dislike blue, you could do your best to find something that you like for reasons other than being blue.

Objective truth is the stable solid ground upon which we build our own subjective truths and the meeting point for which we can compare our own subjective truths with others.


I have no major qualms with this. It could very well be that the root of my annoyance with the phrases I've mentioned is that it almost treats subjectivity as an antonym for truth. There are some minor, mostly irrelevant, things that I disagree with. On the whole though, I think we're in agreement.
24614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

theYchromosome wrote:
It could very well be that the root of my annoyance with the phrases I've mentioned is that it almost treats subjectivity as an antonym for truth.
Don't get me wrong I hate the holy hell out of the phrase when used in that manner too. Opinion is not an inherently negative thing, nor does it mean the opposite of truth. Its also not in any way the antonym of fact. The entire reason the term false fact exists is to be the antonym of fact, as opinion is not even on the same sliding scale as fact. The real annoyance I have with "That's just your opinion" is people use the term when trying to argue against another's presented fact with another conflicting one of their own. Calling something an opinion when discussing facts is pretty much a cop out way of ending a discussion while simultaneously appealing to peoples negative views on the word opinion in order to discredit their opposition. Its kind of like two people getting into a brawl, one person deciding to bail but punching out the other dudes girlfriend out on the way out so as to not "lose".

3117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

salinas0731 wrote:

I come back to this thread and this is all I see



Arguing for the sake of arguing, y'all more bored than I am.


What's wrong with arguing for the sake of arguing?
66192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

BearSol wrote:


Oldthrashbar wrote:

Kinda like liberals. They always use that when conservatives serve them FACTS.


Like O'Reilly! That Liberal is always saying, "Well, that's your opinion," when people are serving him FACTS.

Do you have to turn everything into an attack against your opposing political party? They all do the same thing, conservative or liberal. Calling one side out on something both sides do only shows blind contempt on your part.


I'm open to truth when I hear it from a liberal. But I've never heard them say anything that makes sense.
66192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 9/25/13 , edited 9/25/13

AshRandom wrote:


Oldthrashbar wrote:

Kinda like liberals. They always use that when conservatives serve them FACTS.




Oddly enough, it's a fact that liberals *are* conservatives.


"When Clinton took office, the national debt was at $4.1 trillion. By the time Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 election and began enacting the Contract With America, the national debt was about $4.8 trillion. When Clinton finally signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 the national debt was at about $5.4 trillion.

At the end of 2000 the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. A year later, with Democrats in control of the Senate, and then 9/11 happening, the national debt stood at $5.9 trillion. 5 years later, at the end of 2006 and 5 years of Republican rule in both Congress and the White House, two wars, a tax cut inspired economic recovery, the national debt stood at $8.7 trillion. Two years later, under a Democratic congress and Republican president the national debt stood at $10.7 trillion. Today, three months later, it is $11.1 trillion. Feeling sick yet?

So what was Clinton’s surplus? Well, it wasn’t ever anything more than on paper. Every year of Clinton’s presidency the debt increased. In fact, his budget for the fiscal year ending September 29, 2001 resulted in a $133 billion deficit.".


Source: " http://ccvoice.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/debts-deficits-and-the-myth-of-the-clinton-surplus/ "

I urge you to read it. It is very much true that the deficit was narrowing during Bushes second term. The man was not a good public speaker. But he was no idiot. There was a surplus due in 2009 before the democrats took over and began applying socialistic principles. And ignoring the entire constitution.

Yes. Bush had set us down the road to a REAL surplus. Still think he's a fucking moron?
43458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Livingston, Louis...
Offline
Posted 9/25/13
Where the Hell are GayAsianBoy and AnimeKami when you need them? This isn't a debate thread until those two are here.
13564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / New York
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

Oldthrashbar wrote:


"When Clinton took office, the national debt was at $4.1 trillion. By the time Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 election and began enacting the Contract With America, the national debt was about $4.8 trillion. When Clinton finally signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 the national debt was at about $5.4 trillion.

At the end of 2000 the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. A year later, with Democrats in control of the Senate, and then 9/11 happening, the national debt stood at $5.9 trillion. 5 years later, at the end of 2006 and 5 years of Republican rule in both Congress and the White House, two wars, a tax cut inspired economic recovery, the national debt stood at $8.7 trillion. Two years later, under a Democratic congress and Republican president the national debt stood at $10.7 trillion. Today, three months later, it is $11.1 trillion. Feeling sick yet?

So what was Clinton’s surplus? Well, it wasn’t ever anything more than on paper. Every year of Clinton’s presidency the debt increased. In fact, his budget for the fiscal year ending September 29, 2001 resulted in a $133 billion deficit.".


Source: " http://ccvoice.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/debts-deficits-and-the-myth-of-the-clinton-surplus/ "

I urge you to read it. It is very much true that the deficit was narrowing during Bushes second term. The man was not a good public speaker. But he was no idiot. There was a surplus due in 2009 before the democrats took over and began applying socialistic principles. And ignoring the entire constitution.

Yes. Bush had set us down the road to a REAL surplus. Still think he's a fucking moron?


Did you even read your own source?

Even going by pure deficit totals, Clinton's presidency added about 1 trillion while Bush's presidency added 6 trillion.
46764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/13

DetectiveAlex wrote:

What's wrong with arguing for the sake of arguing?


when the discussion is going no where than everything, but that's just like my opinion...man.
43458 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Livingston, Louis...
Offline
Posted 9/25/13
Yo dawg, I herd you liek opinions, so I have an opinion about your opinion so you can argue about my opinion.

Admit it, that was devilishly good, no?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.