Yes, I am one to talk, because I wasn't doing anything wrong, but you decided to call names. You can't call me out when you're at fault.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
What Makes An Opinion "Valid"?
- Thread starter KissingSunlight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Uh huh ... then link the argument in question. Where it began, and let others judge that for themselves. I call garbage that I was the one being condescending and crude. I even politely explained how labour is directly related to energy production, the reason why fuel is used, and you dismissed it out of hand ... nor did you even bother to justify why you dismissing the political considerations of labour out of hand.FalloutJack said:
Otherwise thoroughly off-topic.
'Valid attempts' does make more sense if you consider the judgment of invalidity or validity as something impersonal to the argument, or has some quantifiable reason for being wrong. I should have used 'attempts'. I must admit what you wrote is clearer. It's not as if I'm preparing an essay, so I think it boils down to laziness on my part.Pseudonym said:
Given that you nailed the general meaning, I don't see the problem.
Nah, I'll just link the part where you decided to call me a ****.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Anyone who wants to read the whole thing and form their own opinion is down to them. My read of it is that you were reacting badly towards my effort to steer you on-topic. Since I was not being malicious in any form, even 'subtly', you were pretty much out of line. You can't take your temper out on people like that.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Why not? I asked repeatedly what was wrong about the discussion. Your reply each time was to ignore the discussion. You merely said; "You're off-topic..." I hanfle one thing badly (though only in response to someone bullshitting about the nature of the discussion), doesn't relinquish a person of their responsibility in winding someone up.FalloutJack said:
In fact you're even taking that post out of context now.FalloutJack said:
OH... and for reference sake...
You were completely out of line. The discussion was about politics, not specifics of an energy source. Entirely relevant to bring up ideas of labour, and economic developments. Furthermore, it was entirely relevant in an expanding discussion of automation, and whether or not automation would be the result of cheap/free, pollution-free energy sources in relation to labour saving measures. I argued against that (with another poster, you simply bullshitted and said my reply was as if off-topic) because human labour in many parts of the world would still be cheaper than robotics. Plus humans demand control over what they hold dear. Convenience doesn't cactor into it. Star Trek would be boring if people sat by their replicators all day shoving chocolate cake into their gobs.
Apparently this wasn't political enough for you.
I asked repeatedly, what is your stand on as to what cheapp/free energy for all would do. And you ignored that, and even said I was off-topic solely because I didn't talk about the energy source itself, even when that wasn't the discussion to begin with or what the OP asked. I made the assumption you had a problem with me, because other posters were talking about the rise of A.I. and robotics and yet you clearly had no problem with them having that discussion.
So I called out your behaviour. I'm not proud of it, the tone should have been diplomatic... but by that point my patience had waned.
No, I think this conversation is done. Your stand on the topic is that words are meaningless. In the paradigm of my conversations with you, I agree. The words that you say on the issues are meaningless.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
I'm glad we had this talk.
Is something "worthless" makes it "invalid"? If someone said, "Chocolate ice cream is the best." Would that opinion be invalid?BeeGeenie said:
I didn't write that at all, in fact your reactions are more telling of the problem of validity and invalidity and the question of time. I wrote on this point before and you simply ignored it.KissingSunlight said:
And frankly, yeah. Given your general attitude, it's plain to see you have no wish to engage honestly.
Sorry for the delay. I was asking about subjective.KissingSunlight said:
The "not burdened by the truth" part is nowhere to be seen here, and all the definitions I found in dictionaries during my search don't have it either. That's why I asked in the first place. From where did you learned that definition?
How does the dictionary definition of "subjective" conflict with what I said? I essentially said the same thing in a different way. No where in the definition of "subjective" does it say it is based on, influenced, or burdened by the truth.CaitSeith said:
Exactly. Which means it might or it might not be influenced by the truth. That depends of the context. And this is how I see the validity of an opinion: it's directly dependent to the context. Why? Validity is an objective mesurament. To attach it to something subjective like an opinion, context is required (and some contexts require the truth). There is no valid/invalid opinion without context.KissingSunlight said:
I think you need to reread the two definitions again. No where in either definitions of "opinion" or "subjective" does it say "It might be required to be true."CaitSeith said:
If an opinion isn't based on truth or facts, it is still an opinion. If you have facts or information that conflicts with what the person is saying, you can disagree with that opinion. It doesn't make the opinion invalid. It's valid to the person making the opinion. To dismiss somebody's opinion as "invalid", because you disagree with it. That is insulting to the person with the opinion.
They neither say "it might be required to not be true" either. But that's not the point. It isn't being true or false what makes the opinion invalid. It's firstmost the context. Context determines if the truth, facts, education, or experience are even a factor or not.KissingSunlight said:
Facts are required to be true, not opinions. At most, you can disagree with an opinion. If the "context" that you are talking about is someone making an argument, and the person has included facts that are not true. You can declare that argument as invalid. Using valid facts to prove why the argument is invalid.CaitSeith said:
For that you must had already established that false facts aren't valid for an argument. Discussing Theology involves arguments that science has proved false, and yet that doesn't make them invalid in that context. It's when these opinions don't match the context when they become invalid (like theological arguments in a scientific discussion about evolution).KissingSunlight said:
Can facts be facts if it is not true? I still think you are conflating "opinion" with "argument". Also, the example of using religious text in a scientific discussion is a matter of relevancy. I know a lot of people use religious text to justify scientific beliefs. I think it is fair to declare those arguments as invalid.CaitSeith said: