Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Opinions?

DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:05:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Webster's dictionary defines oppinion as: "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"

Many people assert that opinions are neither right nor wrong. They also assert that everyone is entitled to their opinions reguardless of their validity. I would like to call this into question. I have a strong belief that opinions, like any other statement, are either right or wrong. There is no such thing as a statement which is neither [with the exception of statements which don't actually say something].

What are your opinions on this?
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:08:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well that is just your opinion, it is not my place to say whether or not you are right or wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion though.

That's just my opinion, I don't know if I am wrong or right, my opinion is that I am right.

Just my opinion though.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:12:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:05:10 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Webster's dictionary defines oppinion as: "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"

Many people assert that opinions are neither right nor wrong. They also assert that everyone is entitled to their opinions reguardless of their validity. I would like to call this into question. I have a strong belief that opinions, like any other statement, are either right or wrong. There is no such thing as a statement which is neither [with the exception of statements which don't actually say something].

What are your opinions on this?

What would be the purpose of me giving you my opinion if you can simply discard it as being "wrong"? My opinion is that your opinion opens the door to close-mindedness. If somebody states something that you disagree with, what would stop you from claiming that their opinion is just wrong and moving on? Who decides which opinions are 'right' or 'wrong'?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:22:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Depends on what you mean by opinion,

"Cherry lifesavers are really good!!" is quite subjective

Some opinions are also kind of arguable: "It's my opinion that Hitler was a dousche", which given certain agreed upon premises can be argued to be true or false.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:30:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:24:23 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Every man is a fool in some man's opinion

That's just your opinion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:31:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There exists no objective truth, but that doesn't mean some assertions are significantly more valid than others. Take for exampe:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because I say so.
Versus:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist because no entity can be both invisible and pink.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:41:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:12:07 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:05:10 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Webster's dictionary defines oppinion as: "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"

Many people assert that opinions are neither right nor wrong. They also assert that everyone is entitled to their opinions reguardless of their validity. I would like to call this into question. I have a strong belief that opinions, like any other statement, are either right or wrong. There is no such thing as a statement which is neither [with the exception of statements which don't actually say something].

What are your opinions on this?

What would be the purpose of me giving you my opinion if you can simply discard it as being "wrong"? My opinion is that your opinion opens the door to close-mindedness. If somebody states something that you disagree with, what would stop you from claiming that their opinion is just wrong and moving on? Who decides which opinions are 'right' or 'wrong'?

Really? So it's close-minded to believe in logic and rational argumentation?

Some opinions categorically *are* wrong like the opinion "there is no such thing as truth"; there's no two ways about it. That's wrong. Now just because some opinions can either be right or wrong doesn't stop people or shouldn't stop people for giving reasons why a opinion is right or wrong.

There is absolutely no reason why all opinions should be regarded as equal irrespective of validity.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:44:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:12:07 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
What would be the purpose of me giving you my opinion if you can simply discard it as being "wrong"? My opinion is that your opinion opens the door to close-mindedness. If somebody states something that you disagree with, what would stop you from claiming that their opinion is just wrong and moving on? Who decides which opinions are 'right' or 'wrong'?

--This is an incorrect inturpretation of what I meant. This is not "opening the door to close-mindedness".

"If somebody states something that you disagree with, what would stop you from claiming that their opinion is just wrong and moving on?"

--Nothing is stopping me from saying it is wrong and moving on. However, this does not make your opinion wrong, or right for that matter. What I am saying is that opinions should not be held above reproach.

--For example, the opinion: "Rap music is bad."

--Most people would say that this is an opinion and is neither right or wrong. However, if we can define good, and if we knew all the good and bad things about rap, then we could determine whether the opinion is right or wrong.

--Do not mix the term "unverifiable" with "neither right or wrong". Unverifiable means we don't or can't know whether it is right or wrong. The later one is self-explanatory.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:47:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:31:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There exists no objective truth, but that doesn't mean some assertions are significantly more valid than others. Take for exampe:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because I say so.
Versus:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist because no entity can be both invisible and pink.

--I would have to disagree with this. I would say that there is an objective truth. Everything is either right or wrong. I would be interested in why you believe there is no objective truth.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:47:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree. DK's point about context seems pretty solid. If we can reduce subjectivity down to objectivity, there is no gray area.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:53:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:47:28 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:31:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There exists no objective truth, but that doesn't mean some assertions are significantly more valid than others. Take for exampe:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because I say so.
Versus:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist because no entity can be both invisible and pink.

--I would have to disagree with this. I would say that there is an objective truth. Everything is either right or wrong. I would be interested in why you believe there is no objective truth.

What do you believe is objectively true?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:57:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:47:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I agree. DK's point about context seems pretty solid. If we can reduce subjectivity down to objectivity, there is no gray area.

Yes, but only for those which agree right?

Or if you try to say what is good according to human nature I think you can come up with an objective human morality.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:59:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:53:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:47:28 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:31:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There exists no objective truth, but that doesn't mean some assertions are significantly more valid than others. Take for exampe:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because I say so.
Versus:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist because no entity can be both invisible and pink.

--I would have to disagree with this. I would say that there is an objective truth. Everything is either right or wrong. I would be interested in why you believe there is no objective truth.

What do you believe is objectively true?

The Law of Non-Contradiction.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:00:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:57:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:47:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I agree. DK's point about context seems pretty solid. If we can reduce subjectivity down to objectivity, there is no gray area.

Yes, but only for those which agree right?

Or if you try to say what is good according to human nature I think you can come up with an objective human morality.

Or at least argue for given you share the "natural human feeling" with your counterpart.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:03:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:59:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
What do you believe is objectively true?

The Law of Non-Contradiction.

Most would assert that the law of non-contradiction is true, that "Contradictions cannot exist in reality", but when we consider that if there were no contradictions in reality, then we would not be able to move at all, given that we must pass through an infinity of points to move at all and that infinities cannot be traversed, we can conclude that the law of noncontradiction is arbitrary.

One could also assert that there is no ultimate reality, or that if one were to percieve a contradition and believe that perception is reality, then that person would disagree with you. You may find him/her wrong based on your circular belief in non-contradiction, but their opinion is just as valid as yours.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:12:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:47:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I agree. DK's point about context seems pretty solid. If we can reduce subjectivity down to objectivity, there is no gray area.

That's just your opinion.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:17:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Apples taste better than oranges. That's an opinion. It can't be right or wrong.

Or Catherine Zeta Jones is hot. That's an opinion also. It can't be right or wrong.

The Sears tower has sturdier architecture than the Empire State Building. This is an opinion, and it can be proven right or wrong.

You have H1N1, says the Doctor. This is his professional opinion, and it can be proven right or wrong.

So, it really depends on what type of information you are talking about.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:19:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:17:54 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Apples taste better than oranges. That's an opinion. It can't be right or wrong.

Or Catherine Zeta Jones is hot. That's an opinion also. It can't be right or wrong.

The Sears tower has sturdier architecture than the Empire State Building. This is an opinion, and it can be proven right or wrong.

You have H1N1, says the Doctor. This is his professional opinion, and it can be proven right or wrong.

So, it really depends on what type of information you are talking about.

That's just your opinion.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:20:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:31:48 PM, wjmelements wrote:
There exists no objective truth, but that doesn't mean some assertions are significantly more valid than others. Take for exampe:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists because I say so.
Versus:
-The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist because no entity can be both invisible and pink.

No objective truths? That's not true at all :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:22:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:12:31 PM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:47:39 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I agree. DK's point about context seems pretty solid. If we can reduce subjectivity down to objectivity, there is no gray area.

That's just your opinion.

Lol :P
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:22:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:20:19 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
No objective truths? That's not true at all :)

Fire away.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:23:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:19:29 PM, johngriswald wrote:
At 12/14/2009 4:17:54 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Apples taste better than oranges. That's an opinion. It can't be right or wrong.

Or Catherine Zeta Jones is hot. That's an opinion also. It can't be right or wrong.

The Sears tower has sturdier architecture than the Empire State Building. This is an opinion, and it can be proven right or wrong.

You have H1N1, says the Doctor. This is his professional opinion, and it can be proven right or wrong.

So, it really depends on what type of information you are talking about.

That's just your opinion.

No Sh1t. That was my point.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:25:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:20:19 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

No objective truths? That's not true at all :)

Other than the fact that you experience things, I would say it kind of is. Math and the like seems objective, but it could (i think) plausibly be related to assumptions we need to make to concieve of physical reality.

Everything else is assumptions, if you share assumptions, then you can argue about other things.

If you assume physical reality=objective reality, then you can claim to know objective truths, but that's only given your assumptions.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Even the statement "I percieve" would be viewed by the solipsist as more correctly stated "Perception occurs". Some solispsists would argue that other entities of free will are but manifestations of their own consciousness.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:32:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:03:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Most would assert that the law of non-contradiction is true, that "Contradictions cannot exist in reality", but when we consider that if there were no contradictions in reality, then we would not be able to move at all, given that we must pass through an infinity of points to move at all and that infinities cannot be traversed, we can conclude that the law of noncontradiction is arbitrary.


--Infinities actualy can be traversed... by other infinities. Besides, points have no length or width. You are saying the equivalent of "because there are an infinite amount of zero's between one and two, then it is impossible to get to two".

--Their ARE NO real contradictions in reality. In this case an infinite number of points is still a finite distance. No infinities are crossed. Points are not a measure of length. They are descriptions of infinitely specific locations.

--If you have another example then please share it with us.

--For now, the law of non-contradiction stands firm.

One could also assert that there is no ultimate reality, or that if one were to percieve a contradition and believe that perception is reality, then that person would disagree with you. You may find him/her wrong based on your circular belief in non-contradiction, but their opinion is just as valid as yours.

--Once again, just because we don't know who is right does not mean that both sides are equally right or wrong. One side is right, and one is wrong, our knowledge does not effect the truth of something else.

--Besides, your view that there is no such thing as an actual objective truth produces paradoxes. Take for example the paraphrased statement of yours: "There are no objective truths." If this is true then there are no objective truths, and it cannot exist. If it is false then it would be true because the statement itself would become an actual absolute objective truth.

--This a perfect example of my point. Your opinion is objectively wrong because it is logicaly inconsistent and contradicts itself.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:33:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:25:35 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

If you assume physical reality=objective reality, then you can claim to know objective truths, but that's only given your assumptions.

That's not to say those assumptions are unreasonable.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:34:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:03:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/14/2009 3:59:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
What do you believe is objectively true?

The Law of Non-Contradiction.

Most would assert that the law of non-contradiction is true, that "Contradictions cannot exist in reality", but when we consider that if there were no contradictions in reality, then we would not be able to move at all, given that we must pass through an infinity of points to move at all and that infinities cannot be traversed, we can conclude that the law of noncontradiction is arbitrary.

1) Logical contradictions can't exist period in reality, mind, or otherwise. I propose that you CANNOT even imagine a square circle; that you cannot POSSIBLY imagine 2 rocks plus another 2 rocks equals 5 rocks. If you can you apparently have the ability to imagine things that can't possibly exist.

2) I assume you are talking about Zeno's Paradox(es)? Those aren't logical contradictions; those are paradoxes that defy our intuitive understanding of movement. The only thing they "contradict" is our experience. Those paradoxes do nothing to show the LNC is false or arbitrary.

One could also assert that there is no ultimate reality, or that if one were to percieve a contradition and believe that perception is reality, then that person would disagree with you. You may find him/her wrong based on your circular belief in non-contradiction, but their opinion is just as valid as yours.

3) You can't perceive a logical contradiction. See above.

4) It is circular - you're right. It's also objectively true.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:38:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 4:31:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Even the statement "I percieve" would be viewed by the solipsist as more correctly stated "Perception occurs". Some solispsists would argue that other entities of free will are but manifestations of their own consciousness.

Existence exists.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 4:39:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
2 + 2 = 4. Disprove that.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.