Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Just for the sake of this being academic.

EPIIIBITES proposes that regardless of whether you like music or not, regardless of what your taste is, there is such a thing as factually good music and factually bad music. NOTHING to do with anything other than the music that is produced, not the musicians, not anything. He proposes there is a universal truth, fact, beyond all deniability, that there is factually good music, or factually bad, outside of personal taste.

I propose the opposite; There is no factually good or bad, there is only opinion. Informed opinions or not, it's still opinion on what is good music or bad music. No matter how obvious something is, eg: The Hendrix Vs Spears argument, it's still not a fact that one makes better music, it's all preference. That is my side.

So, for the sake of argument. Vote.

I'd prefer the following: If you're going to vote, make sure you post your view too. If you're going to be sad enough to sock just to get votes, then you're ruining it and you are sad.

-AC

For starters. You're unfair for starting a thread that misinterprets what I said.

I never said anything about "factually" good or bad music. You implied that out of your own logic.

I've ALWAYS said there aren't facts that can prove it.


How typical of you to twist things to your favour.

Good job!

This is my explanation of the argument...


There's so many intricacies as to why you might like or dislike a song that go far beyond your comprehension...same as the intricacies that determine what food you like. And the outcome of what sounds or tastes good to you or not has nothing to do with the actual quality of the music or food in question.

If I go to a 5 star fine-dining restaurant and say "I don't like that dish", that doesn't mean squat! Who the heck am I to then suggest that it's a bad dish?

More realistically, you'd have to turn to a fine dining chef, have him explore the determinng factors of what makes good fine dining food, and trust his informed opinion over simply going off of your taste.

These are Alpha Centauri's responses to my argument...


No, I know why I like and dislike songs. You may not have control over your mental capacity, but I have control over mine.

If I eat steak that tastes horrible, it's not good food, to me. If you eat that same steak and like the taste, then it's good food to you. The same with music.

The customer is always right. Ever heard the phrase? The chef is there to serve you. If there was a universal truth that certain foods were good or bad, there'd be no need for a menu, you complete idiot.

Taste determines verdict. There isn't a universal truth or standard, that's what you need to accept. Your insisting that there is will not hold up.

No, you wouldn't. You'd say "I don't like the way this tastes, it's not good.". That's not a fact, it's an opinion, just like "Good dining food" is an opinion.

Just like music.

The point being, informed opinion based on determining factors (originality, innovation, emotion, etc...) should be used to look at if music is crap or not. It's not like good music has to have ALL of these, but a crap song usually has little-to-none of these.

Not everyone who listens to the radio has an infromed opinion about whether or not a song is crap.

But there IS such a thing as crap music, crap food, and crap fashion. It exists, regardless of what your taste is regarding it.

It can't necessarily be proven by facts as suggested in the thread description, but it can be recognized by informed opinion...not always, but more often than not.

There is a truth about good and bad music that exists apart from opinion.

That's all I have to say.


Go ahead and vote.

Number of consecutive posts does not equate to validity of argument

Sorry...but the thread description was a little misleading.

I never misrepresented anything you said EPIIIBITES, I made sure not to, and I could easily have made you seem stupid.

However, I'm confident you'll do that on your own, as you have done by even holding the belief and as evidenced by your panic.

You believe there is a universal truth that sets good and bad music apart from any opinion, there isn't, but either way, that's what I described your stance as.

The only reason you're upset is cos you wanted to mislead people by packing this thread full of off point analogies and flawed tangents.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
EPIIIBITES proposes that regardless of whether you like music or not, regardless of what your taste is, there is such a thing as factually good music and factually bad music.
I'll be the judge if that's what I propose or not...not you.

I don't care if you think the word "factual" belongs there (and I know your reasons why, and how you think it relates to truth), but I don't think it belongs there, becasue I think there are certain truths which exist that can't be proven by facts (such as killing being wrong).

You misinterpreted what I said, and as people start to understand my argument, they'll agree with me that you've done so.

But there aren't, so again you prove your idiocy.

Stop the panic, are you afraid or something? Nothing I've said is misleading, I've accurately depicted your stance, and even if I didn't, you certainly made it clear.

So let the people vote, stop being a beggar.

-AC

Cute AC.

I just clearly demonstrated how you misinterpreted what I said...but you apear to be in denial (as it seems you've been in the past) about the blatantly obvious for the sake of not losing an argument.

Oh well...


Let's just hear the verdict then...

You do realise this thread isn't to decide objectivity in music, right? It's to show how many agree with either of us.

There isn't any objectivity in music perception, that's a fact.

-AC

We'd like to see these facts AC. Show them to us!

PS. Now he'll bring out his little dictionary, look up the word "fact", and say...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
fact

Something that actually exists; reality; truth.
...and try to somehow suggest that my argument (about all truths not being provable by facts) is wrong according to a dictionary definition.

I've spent about three threads smacking you in the face with them, I'll not allow it to detract from this thread.

Your desperation is sad.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've spent about three threads smacking you in the face with them, I'll not allow it to detract from this thread. Good

Don't

We're worse than a married couple.

WE'RE not anything.

You're just stupid and love attention, hence why you can't just let it drop, even when you request I do, and then I do.

-AC

We're a couple AC...c'mon.

I'll report you for trolling if the next post you say to me isn't on topic, and seeing as you don't want to keep dwelling on the same argument, I'd consider your words.

-AC

How completely uncool.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll report you for trolling if the next post you say to me isn't on topic AC

61 people have visited this thread.

3 have voted (and I'm not sure if one of them is you)

Nobody cares!

Partly because you totally flubbed the poll.


Now you wanna report me for having a little fun with a couple posts???

What are you???

Christ, if it bothers you THAT much that it's eating you alive, make a poll again.

Stop being such an idiot. If you want to debate, we'll debate, but you don't even wish to do that, so don't bump threads to make off topic comments about me.

-AC

I was joking...adding a little levity! RELAX!

People do that s#*% all around these threads.


Making another poll would be silly.

I've explained my argument...and I explained why I thought the thread description was misleading...so with that, I'm fine.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just for the sake of this being academic.

EPIIIBITES proposes that regardless of whether you like music or not, regardless of what your taste is, there is such a thing as factually good music and factually bad music. NOTHING to do with anything other than the music that is produced, not the musicians, not anything. He proposes there is a universal truth, fact, beyond all deniability, that there is factually good music, or factually bad, outside of personal taste.

I propose the opposite; There is no factually good or bad, there is only opinion. Informed opinions or not, it's still opinion on what is good music or bad music. No matter how obvious something is, eg: The Hendrix Vs Spears argument, it's still not a fact that one makes better music, it's all preference. That is my side.

So, for the sake of argument. Vote.

I'd prefer the following: If you're going to vote, make sure you post your view too. If you're going to be sad enough to sock just to get votes, then you're ruining it and you are sad.

-AC

Maybe its not so black & white as your poll suggests. I think maybe theres a gray area. Like the whole Hendrix V Spears thing. If I were to listen to "Voodoo Child" and then "One More Time" I would definately say Hendrix is better. In fact "obvious" would be the word I would use. And Im not even the biggest fan of Hendrix. I think he's a good guitarist who's really overblown and everyone feels like they need to say they like him, but still telented. However, there'd be no doubt in my mind that Hendrix makes factuallly better music.

EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
However, there'd be no doubt in my mind that Hendrix makes factuallly better music.
Thank you for your comments.

But instead of saying Hendrix makes "factually" better music, I would just argue that he makes "truly" better music. Facts are hard to come by.

And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.

I think truth isn't always proven by facts (which is a fair philosophical statement to make...ex. arguing that "killing is wrong" is a universal truth, even though it can't be proven)...and I state that there can be music that is "truly" bad. Again, can't prove it though with facts...so I wouldn't say "factually", I'd say "truly"...which I argue is different, for the reasons above.

Apart from that, all you can do is break a song down using determining factors...(does it have substance, originality, innovation, etc...)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.
That's right...because when you have informed opinions looking at determining factors like I've suggested, you get more or less the same bands showing up at the top for making good music...and even more common, you get more or less the same artists getting panned for making crap.


I think it's fair to give AC a chance to reply...

How many times you gonna have this argument before you realize its useless?

It's not useless at all...you just don't understand it.

Stop telling people they don't understand just because you have an idiotic point of view.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, as I have proven. It's just bullshit.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like the whole Hendrix V Spears thing. If I were to listen to "Voodoo Child" and then "One More Time" I would definately say Hendrix is better. In fact "obvious" would be the word I would use. And Im not even the biggest fan of Hendrix. I think he's a good guitarist who's really overblown and everyone feels like they need to say they like him, but still telented. However, there'd be no doubt in my mind that Hendrix makes factuallly better music.

He doesn't make factually better music though, it's not a fact. You are saying that because Britney Spears is a stupid pop idiot and Jimi Hendrix is...well...Jimi Hendrix. That does not make his music better by fact, and you agreed with me in the other thread when I broke it down for you last time.

He doesn't make factually better music. It's as close to fact as you can get, but it's not actually a fact, it's still just opinion. His talent does not afford him the luxury of making factually better music, just being the factually better MUSICIAN.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.

I'll quote you: " everyone feels like they need to say they like him.". While Hendrix deserves every bit of credit he gets, a lot of the legends get on there because people feel they need to say it.

Hendrix does not make factually better music than Britney Spears.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But instead of saying Hendrix makes "factually" better music, I would just argue that he makes "truly" better music. Facts are hard to come by.

They aren't hard to come by, here's one: Hendrix doesn't make factually better music. Nobody makes factually better music than anybody. He makes music that is just ACCEPTED as better by many with informed OPINIONS, it's not FACTUALLY better.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.

But what YOU THINK doesn't matter, because you are trying to apply a NON-EXISTENT universal truth that they are different.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think truth isn't always proven by facts (which is a fair philosophical statement to make...ex. arguing that "killing is wrong" is a universal truth, even though it can't be proven)..

Killing being wrong is not a universal truth, is entirely subjective. You cannot prove it, so therefore, it's entirely subjective, but rather than concede that point, you try to grip on by saying "But (for some reason) I BELIEVE THERE IS A WAY TO PROVE IT.".

You fail to understand that it does not matter what you "think", because you are wrong. There is no factually better music.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's not useless at all...you just don't understand it. Lines like that only prove youve got nothing here.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You fail to understand that it does not matter what you "think", because you are wrong. Vice Versa


I've got more to say...but let's wait until round 2 after someone else makes a comment...

Cool?

Just for the record, here is what Quiero Mota said before, as an analogy which he intended to help YOU with:

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's accurate: Not only are Chevys cooler, better looking and far more masculine (subjective), they are mechanically more rebliable and efficient vehicles that last longer and are more durable (objective).

To which I replied;

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely.

That's like saying not only are Zeppelin better at making music that's good (Subjective), but they are technically superior players (Objective).

So, effectively, you've just proved EP wrong also. Funny.

And oh so hilariously, his final reply:


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I wasn't even trying to, ey.

I just decided to play his little comparison game. That's funny; I inadvertently destroyed his dumb-ass argument.

*takes a celebratory shot of Sauza*

This from a man who previously said someone made factually better music than someone else, and then destroyed your argument, as did we all, without trying.

So you see, EPIIIBITES, even when somebody isn't trying to beat you, they beat you.

-AC

That might be the most embarrassing tactic I've ever seen anyone use in the history of these boards. Why do you feel the need to stoop to such levels?

You feel you're losing the argument so bad, that you're bumping threads, picking and choosing your favorite quotes from the past, and using mass-posting strategies to prove me wrong.

...shameful if you ask me.

The argument isn't even up for debate. We're not debating whether music is objective or not, because it isn't, that's a fact.

What's happening is I'm, perhaps foolishly, attempting to bury you under so much overwhelming proof and evidence that one day you'll either stop this act, or drop the genuine curtain of idiocy that you hold up, and see that you are factually incorrect.

"Give it up.". What's shameful is you, your constant bumping threads with references to marriage, requesting me to give it up and then starting again cos you get lonely.

So I will ask you one last time; Either debate on topic, or don't debate.

-AC

You're shameful, I'm sorry to point out.

You see someone start to agree with me, so you go months back to your favorite quotes, bumping threads along the way, to try and disprove me (and him) with what he's now saying about the topic by using his old quotes.

Amazing.

Unbelievable.

What a guy!

And you know what?


That's actually more disrespectful to Quiero Mota than it is to me, to rummage through his old posts so you can make it seem that what he's saying now is different from he said in the past...just becasue you're afraid he might now be agreeing with a point of mine.


What...you're speaking for people now?

So what's your definition of crap food?

I'm really interested?

Originally posted by Smasandian
So what's your definition of crap food?

I'm really interested? I dunno. What do I know about food?


As I said though...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
More realistically, you'd have to turn to a fine dining chef, have him explore the determinng factors of what makes good fine dining food, and trust his informed opinion over simply going off of your taste.
The same with music...and it's no surprise that people with informed opinions about music will more or less point to the same artists or songs as being crap...and they do this by considering determining factors (originality, innovation, emotion, etc...).

Still...it can't be factually proven. But I maintain that there "truly" is bad music...otherwise it wouldn't be so widely obvious with people who have informed opinions about music.

It's not simply one's taste that determines what's good and what's not...with music, or with food. You get fine-dining chefs together (who naturally have informed opinions about cooking)...and more often than not they'll point to the same foods they think are utter rubbish.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
It's entirely possible that you could give a man all the training and expertise it takes to be a world-class chef, and he could still enjoy eating a burger and fries from McDonalds.
Much like I've said it's entirely possible to enjoy sub-par music (which I've admitted to many times).

Enjoying something has nothing to do with whether it's actually good or not.

We can't help what we enjoy. Whethter it's food, music, or what clothes we like.

Thing is though, it's quite possible (and that's what people have a problem with) that the food or song you like might actually be crap.


And I never said all fine-dining chefs will like the same things...I said they'll more or less end up agreeing on stuff that's crap.

It also happens in the music world, and it also happens in the fashion world.

Maybe objective might not be the best word.

I like to use the word "truth" personally...if I started this thread I would would've said something like "truthfully bad music" or something.

Still, my critics suggest that truth is essentially fact.

I maintain that there are truths that can't necessarily be proven by facts ("killing being wrong" is one of them). I don't think that comes down to opinion...I say it's a truth that exists regardless of opinion.

Some people don't think in those terms...and that's ultimately where the conflict lies.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
We're a couple AC...c'mon.

Had a feeling that's what all this was about.

'I'd love to see your wardrobe!'

I-I call it a closet.

'I call it a big box!'

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


And I don't think the two words are interchangeable, becasue I think truth can exist apart from facts.



It can't, though.

I think you probably mean truth can exist despite a lack of available and accessible evidence. If it's true, it's also factual.


Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

But Brittney Spears is an example of what I say is crap music. And the set of criterion I've used to try and determine this is...


Her music is unoriginal...and even her own songs sound the same as each other.

Her music is forcefully marketed, as it contains contemporary sounds and rhythms strictly to sell a product (and in the process, hindering musical creativity).

Her music is contrived.

Her music has little-to-no emotion.

Her music has no substance.

She uses sex and an image to sell her music.

Her music lacks depth.

Her music doesn't have any particularly good instrumentation or singing.

Her music is not innovative.

Her lyrics aren't particularly clever, interesting, or insightful.

Her music doesn't have any soul.

Her music is disposable and easily forgettable (and that's different form being catchy).

Her voice doesn’t have emotion and isn't expressive.


Now, even though I'd say that NONE of those apply to Jimi Hendrix, lets just stick to Brittney for now.


I've explained how this works many times, yet people still argue over the words objective, subjective, facts and opinions.

The problem is actually the word 'better'. It has no clear, formal meaning. If we define the criteria by which we are determining which music is better, then it is actually possible to make a factual determination.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Saying Jimi Hendrix is better than Britney Spears might be logical, but it is not factual, i.e. not truth

Cue EPIIIBITES skipping over the fact that, despite you saying you might understand what he's saying (As do I.), you disagree with him, as anyone should, because he's wrong.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Some people don't think in those terms...and that's ultimately where the conflict lies.

The conflict comes from you thinking truth and fact are not intrinsic. They are, as told to you by anyone here.

-AC

poor survey imho since its absolute on both sides.

imho there is a threshold between music (concieved by able musicians) and crap (complete lack of any musical ability). however this threshold has little or nothing to do with what one's opinion is. you have to acknowledge that its possible to completely suck at playing, and thus factually suck. i know its nitpicky of me to point out, but imho proof that there is a small degree of objectivity (posessing/not posessing basic abilities).

anyway i can think of plenty of succesful 'music' which is factually bad. how you can tell: nobody over the age of 13 wants to listen to it and everyone who listens to it (under 13) eventually grows sick of it and realises it was crap all along.

Originally posted by Schecter
anyway i can think of plenty of succesful 'music' which is factually bad. how you can tell: nobody over the age of 13 wants to listen to it and everyone who listens to it (under 13) eventually grows sick of it and realises it was crap all along.
Very true...success does not equal quality though.

This is the key point that AC won't accept...and it speaks volumes of truth.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I argue that people who have informed opinions about music and use such criteria (although they probably don't do it as consciously) will more or less tend to agree with each other that Brittney is crap.

And this is because they've heard and they know what music is considered to be innovative...to have substance...to have soul...to have good instrumentation. Their opinions are informed. For example, they listened to a Jimi Hendrix album...thought it was innovative, had soul, etc...and those thoughts were re-affirmed by their other informed peers. And this happened again with other music...and again...until they started to realize that music experts are often agreeing on the same stuff being good music (and the same stuff being crap).
The only argument he can come up with is "it's still opinion...it's not fact."

Great...it's not fact...but it's still true that this happens.

And ya know why it happens?

'Cause there is "truly" bad music and "truly" god music. That's why. It can't be pinpointed down by facts...but it's there...in reality.

Again...I think there can be truths without facts backing it up. Most people don't. But there is NOTHING you could point to that proves you're right and I'm wrong about that...especially not a dictionary definition of "truth".


P.S. Quiero Mota was smart enough to see there's truth in what I'm talking about...
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
EPIIIBITES said in one of his old music threads that the same names consistently appear on "The Greatest" lists. I dont know.....maybe there's something to that.
...which prompted AC to desperately try and skew this latest opinion by posting one of the guys' older quotes on the topic from months back which contradicts what the last quote says.

Clever stuff from AC.

Originally posted by Schecter
poor survey imho since its absolute on both sides.

imho there is a threshold between music (concieved by able musicians) and crap (complete lack of any musical ability). however this threshold has little or nothing to do with what one's opinion is. you have to acknowledge that its possible to completely suck at playing, and thus factually suck. i know its nitpicky of me to point out, but imho proof that there is a small degree of objectivity (posessing/not posessing basic abilities).

anyway i can think of plenty of succesful 'music' which is factually bad. how you can tell: nobody over the age of 13 wants to listen to it and everyone who listens to it (under 13) eventually grows sick of it and realises it was crap all along.

We're not talking about instrumental talent, Schect. That is factually measurable. Eg: Hendrix is factually more talented as a MUSICIAN than Spears.

What we're discussing is the SOUND, how it SOUNDS. There is no factually good or bad SOUNDING music, it really is all opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The only argument he can come up with is "it's still opinion...it's not fact."

Great...it's not fact...but it's still true that this happens.

And ya know why it happens?

'Cause there is "truly" bad music and "truly" god music. That's why. It can't be pinpointed down by facts...but it's there...in reality.

It's NOT there. You are just saying it is because that's what you would need to be victorious in this debate. The fact that it ISN'T is what's causing you to look like an idiot.

Informed opinion is still opinion, do you not agree with that? It's not fact, you've agreed. Fact IS truth, as many people, even the ones who aren't totally siding with me, have told you, so that AGAIN proves you wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again...I think there can be truths without facts backing it up. Most people don't. But there is NOTHING you could point to that proves you're right and I'm wrong about that...especially not a dictionary definition of "truth".

It does not matter what you THINK because you are WRONG.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
P.S. Quiero Mota was smart enough to see there's truth in what I'm talking about...

...which prompted AC to desperately try and skew this latest opinion by posting one of the guys' older quotes on the topic from months back which contradicts what the last quote says.

Clever stuff from AC.

Precisely.

Why say "He agrees." then say "But AC proved he disagreed."? He obviously doesn't agree then. Once I laid it out, he realised.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What we're discussing is the SOUND, how it SOUNDS. There is no factually good or bad SOUNDING music, it really is all opinion.
No we're not...even after all this discussion, you still don't know what the debate is.

We're talking about music that is truly bad...you're talking about how it might SOUND to you.

You don't see the difference.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It does not matter what you THINK because you are WRONG.
That's the argument you've resorted to time and again...even after people have explained to you that you can't just make a statement like that.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why say "He agrees." then say "But AC proved he disagreed."? He obviously doesn't agree then. Once I laid it out, he realised.

I never said "AC proved he disagreed"...I said you tried to skew his opinion.


And how do you know what he's realized. Are you Quiero Mota?


There goes AC speaking for people again. It seems you can never put it past him to do stuff like this.


Another classic example of wanting to block things out to serve your purposes. Where do you find the nerve...really?

Hmmm...


I think I heard someone mention once that AC might be the least accomodating, understanding person on these boards.


Curious why someone would say something like that...

Can you quit the multiple posting? If you're going to edit posts, as you always do, make one post.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No we're not...even after all this discussion, you still don't know what the debate is.

Yes, because everyone is misunderstanding you just because you hold an idiotic belief. It's not "out there", it's not "left", it's stupid.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
We're talking about music that is truly bad...you're talking about how it might SOUND to you.

That's all there is, though. Are we discussing talent on instruments, as in, ability? Technical ability? No. In that case, everything is subjective.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You don't see the difference.

I do. YOU don't see the difference between fact, truth, opinion and informed opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's the argument you've resorted to time and again...even after people have explained to you that you can't just make a statement like that.

I can, I did, so does anyone.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I never said "AC proved he disagreed"...I said you tried to skew his opinion.

I didn't, those quotes I posted were direct, one after the other. I edited nothing out, go check if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And how do you know what he's realized. Are you Quiero Mota?

I quoted him laughing at you and saying you had a dumb-ass argument after, trying to help you, he proved you wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There goes AC speaking for people again. It seems you can never put it past him to do stuff like this.

I quoted words from the man himself.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Another classic example of wanting to block things out to serve your purposes.

What, like denying the factual truth that there is no good or bad music outside of determining instrumental talent?

-AC

BTW


The Poll is:

Me - 3

You -6 (and one of them is probably you)


I guarantee you're just steaming over that...that people aren't overhwelmingly favouring your opinion.

And the things is...it makes sense that those are the numbers.

This is a very new concept that most people might have difficulty understanding at first. Still...it turns out some people do understand where I'm coming from.


Guess I'm not the biggest idiot in the world as you say I am.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We're not talking about instrumental talent, Schect. That is factually measurable. Eg: Hendrix is factually more talented as a MUSICIAN than Spears.

What we're discussing is the SOUND, how it SOUNDS. There is no factually good or bad SOUNDING music, it really is all opinion.

im not sure i understand, since talent and sound tend to be directly related,
unless someone really talented, yet is too cheap/broke to buy decent gear.
anyway, im not trying to blow the doors off your topic, in fact i think you're correct. however i feel that although the majority of music exists in the gray area, there is imho a definitive black and white at the end of each scale.

for instance: stevie ray vaughn, completely owned blues. fact. not disputable.

He's confused Schecter...we're not talking about sound at all.

We're talking about whether music can be truly bad...this has nothing to do with how it simply sounds (meaning how pleasing it is to one's ear).

Your taste in music (how things sound to you) is arbitrary...as is your taste in food.

Now whether it's good or not is a truth that exists apart from how you feel about it (what your taste is regarding it)...and to get an idea of that truth, people with informed opinions can use determining factors (that have proven well in the past in consensus) to see whether or not something is crap or not crap. It can't be proven factually...but it's most often agreed on by informed opinion.


Anything else AC will say about the subject will just confuse you.

Edit: Double post, comp crashed.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BTW


The Poll is:

Me - 3

You -6 (and one of them is probably you)


I guarantee you're just steaming over that...that people aren't overhwelmingly favouring your opinion.

And the things is...it makes sense that those are the numbers.

This is a very new concept that most people might have difficulty understanding at first. Still...it turns out some people do understand where I'm coming from.


Guess I'm not the biggest idiot in the world as you say I am.

I do not need people to agree with me, the fact that I am on the correct side of the debate, outside of opinion, does not require agreement, it commands it, because it's fact. If we debated "Is the Sun hot?", and people voted against me, it wouldn't make your side any more true.

Originally posted by Schecter
im not sure i understand, since talent and sound tend to be directly related,
unless someone really talented, yet is too cheap/broke to buy decent gear.
anyway, im not trying to blow the doors off your topic, in fact i think you're correct. however i feel that although the majority of music exists in the gray area, there is imho a definitive black and white at the end of each scale.

for instance: stevie ray vaughn, completely owned blues. fact. not disputable.

It's like this:

Nobody can deny that Hendrix was a factually talented guitarist, that is the factual area; talent. However, that doesn't make Voodoo Chile a factually good song, does it? No. Someone could say "I think it's crap.", and regardless of anyone saying "That's dumb.", it's still not right or wrong.

It's entirely opinion. We can sit here and rant about how lame Britney Spears' music is, but we cannot say someone is wrong for liking it, it's not factually crap. She's a factually crap musician, she doesn't make FACTUALLY crap music. EPIIBITES then says "factually" isn't the word he's using, he's using "Truthfully", which is the same. A truth = a fact.

EPIIBITES is saying (And I'll paste this.): "I maintain that there are truths that can't necessarily be proven by facts ("killing being wrong" is one of them). I don't think that comes down to opinion...I say it's a truth that exists regardless of opinion.".

He is saying Britney Spears makes truthfully bad music (He is saying truth is separate from fact.) despite what someone thinks of it. He is saying there is a universal standard of good or bad music, regardless of instrumental talent, and regardless of taste.

There isn't.

-AC

Again...AC is going on about stuff not being fact (which I've agreed with), stuff simply being opinion (which I've agreed with...although partially...because opinion is far different from informed opinion), and he won't accept that it is informed opinion (which has proven well time and again by consensus in the past) iwhich points to there being a truth about all of this.

It doesn't prove it...but it demonstrtates it (to people who are open-minded I guess)

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again...AC is going on about stuff not being fact (which I've agreed with), stuff being opinion (which I've agreed with...although partially), and he won't accept that informed opinion (which has proven well time and again by consensus in the past) is what points to there being a truth about all of this.

It doesn't point to anything of the sort. It's just loads of people who agree, it doesn't make anything fact or true.

This whole debate is because you think you can separate the two.

-AC

Exactly...and all your argument to that is, is...

"Well, you're wrong"

"Fact!"


I'm glad we disagree

Because that's all I need to say, because you are.

Fact and truth are not separate, and considering your ignorance of this is what's causing you to still reply, knowing that admitting it would mean self-defeat, that's why you won't say it. Not that I need your admission, you're wrong anyway, it'd just give you back a bit of dignity.

-AC

It's just a difference of opinion at the end of the day, as people have tried to show you.

And you being so uncomfortable with that is reason for concern.


Saying...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...because you are.
...doesn't make me more wrong.


It appears you fail to recognize that what you hold true as logic, might not be logical at all. But you don't even consider that...becasue you just maintian it's logic.


Sorry...but I say you're wrong...deal with it.

No, me saying that does not make you wrong.

The fact that it's back up with undeniable proof and evidence that you are, is what makes you wrong. So instead of tell us we don't understand, or telling us to get over it, or telling us to give it up, please realise that you aren't debating anything you can win.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, me saying that does not make you wrong.

The fact that it's back up with undeniable proof and evidence that you are, is what makes you wrong.
You (and some others) consider it as a fact...I (and some others) don't!


And nothing can make you even consider that what you think is a fact could be wrong...becasue you just simply keep maintaining it's a fact.


THAT'S your problem.

At the end of the day, quoting one definition of the word "truth" from a dictionary to show it's been linked with fact really says NOTHING.

There's no way you can DESCRIBE truth unless you're God I guess.

Until then, it's ultimately down to opinion as to whether truth is subjective or not (and hey...maybe one of us has a more informed opinion about THAT than the other...which could count for lots)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nobody can deny that Hendrix was a factually talented guitarist, that is the factual area; talent. However, that doesn't make Voodoo Chile a factually good song, does it?

yes, actually it does


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He is saying Britney Spears makes truthfully bad music

she does


ok ill stop. yes its all subjective, but sometimes the miniscule minority (example: those who think jimmy sucked and spears has talent) need to be ignored.

Don't worry...they are ignored...and it's almost unanimous with people who have informed opinions about music.

That says lots about the truth of my argument...(although, as AC will maintain, it doesn't prove as fact).

So what? Doesn't mean it's not a truth that we simply just can't explain.

I'll ask you once more, make it a single post, stop with the panic rushing.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You (and some others) consider it as a fact...I (and some others) don't!

Facts are not up for debate, do you not get that? A fact is a fact, facts are undeniable. You cannot disagree with a fact.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And nothing can make you even consider that what you think is a fact could be wrong...becasue you just simply keep maintaining it's a fact.

Because it IS. If there was a doubt in my mind, I would not be claiming it as fact, but it is. The very idea you are putting on me is the one YOU need to adopt. It's not open for debate just because you can't accept that fact and truth are one.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
At the end of the day, quoting one definition of the word "truth" from a dictionary to show it's been linked with fact really says NOTHING.

There's no way you can DESCRIBE truth unless you're God I guess.

Truth is fact, that is known. I keep trying to figure out just how or why you really, REALLY do not understand that. It cannot be just because you are clinging to "TRUTH DOESN'T MEAN FACT!", it can't be, because truth is fact. There must be something inherently wrong with you, or this was all just a test to make a nuisance of yourself.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Until then, it's ultimately down to opinion as to whether truth is subjective or not (and hey...maybe one of us has a more informed opinion about THAT than the other.)

It's really, really not, EPIIIBITES. It's just not.

Look at it this way: If every single truth that we know exists, is also a fact...that's not coincidence. It's because truth and fact are one.

The Sun is hot, fatal wounds kill, jumping off a 100 ft building onto concrete with your head first will kill youl. These are truths, facts, things that, regardless of your opinion, are undeniable.

The same applies to there being no good or bad music OUTSIDE of opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Don't worry...they are ignored...and it's almost unanimous with people who have informed opinions about music.

That says lots about the truth of my argument...(although, as AC will maintain, it doesn't prove as fact).

So what? Doesn't mean it's not a truth that we simply just can't explain.

He was agreeing with me, you fool. He was saying that the people who love Britney Spears have less credible opinions, not that they are factually/truthfully wrong.

Look:

Originally posted by Schecter
ok ill stop. yes its all subjective, but sometimes the miniscule minority (example: those who think jimmy sucked and spears has talent) need to be ignored.

Jimi (It's not Jimmy, to everyone who keeps spelling it wrong.) "sucking" with regards to his MUSIC, NOT TALENT, is pure opinion. It's not wrong, it may be a less credible opinion, but it's not wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Facts are not up for debate, do you not get that? A fact is a fact, facts are undeniable. You cannot disagree with a fact.
I agree...but what you're talking about isn't fact (ie. Paris is the capital of France).

It's very much a philosophical debate...(as people have tried to make you understand).

But all you do is keep your head down and maintain it is a fact. Not very open-minded if you ask me.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I agree...but what you're talking about isn't fact (ie. Paris is the capital of France)

Truth IS fact, that is also a fact. You need to stop ignoring it.

There's nothing philosophical about it, you're trying to be in an attempt to make your pathetic outlook seem realistic. It's simple:

Fact and truth are one, it's fact and truth that there is no objectively good or bad music. That's how it is, nothing you say will ever change it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Truth IS fact, that is also a fact. You need to stop ignoring it.
I'm not ignoring it...I'm just not agreeing with it, because with as huge a topic as truth, I don't have to. It's up for debate.


And to be precise, I'm not agreeing that truth is proven by fact...I'm saying that truth can can exist apart from facts. There aren't facts that can always prove a truth.


Sometimes there are (ie. a thermometer and the sun)...but sometimes there aren't (as in what the truth is about killing being wrong)


You don't undertand that concept, and so just simply say "well, you're wrong"...as if you KNOW what you're saying about truth and facts is logical, and what I'm saying isn't.


You don't KNOW anything...you're tricking yourself into thinking that a dictionary definition of "truth" is pretty much all the evidence you essentially need.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm not ignoring it...I'm just not agreeing with it, because with as huge a topic as truth, I don't have to. It's up for debate.

Not in this debate it isn't.

-AC

And your answer to my comment...Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You don't KNOW anything...you're tricking yourself into thinking that a dictionary definition of "truth" is pretty much all the evidence you essentially need. It is!

-AC

I have a question, it's simple and it requires a simple answer, ok?

You believe truth and fact are separate, wrong, but that's what you claim you believe. You've said fact is objective, but does this mean you believe truth is SUBJECTIVE? I assume you do, as you've said that you think a truth exists, and I do not, so you must feel truth is subjective, do you?

Once you've answered that question, I'll ask my next one. Don't go on tangents, don't go off topic, simple answer.

-AC

Stop putting words in my mouth...I never talk about facts...you do.


As for your answer...no...truth is not subjective. The perception of it is.

You percieve the truth to be different from mine...but it's only really one thing.


Ask your next question then...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Stop putting words in my mouth...I never talk about facts...you do.

Oh I know you hate facts, facts have a devestating effect on your debate, since they prove you wrong. I understand your hatred of them, but this doesn't mean they can be ignored.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
As for yor answer...no...truth is not subjective. The perception of it is.

That makes no sense. So...truth isn't subjective, as in...cannot be denied...but the perception of it is subjective, so really...it can be denied, you'd just be wrong to deny it...which would basically mean...truth can't be denied. Ie: Fact is truth, what I'm saying is fact, and you can't deny it.

Here's what I want you to do for me now:

Step 1: Define what you think objective "crap" is, so we can wrap this up.

Step 2: I want you apply that rationale, that criteria you used to define objective good/bad, to post why you think a song, any song, is objectively GOOD (Say, Lily Allen's Smile or whatever), to the point that YOU BELIEVE it stops being opinion at all. Simple enough, do that for me, please.

If you can do that, to the point that I can NOT deny it, you'll have proven your point.

-AC

I've done all that AC...apart from actually "proving" anything, which I can't.

But I maintain that just becasue I can't prove it, it doesn't mean it's not true.

So there's no point in trying to do something (you already know) can't be done.

The only thing to do is learn to live with the possibility that you might be wrong becasue you really don't KNOW anything. You only THINK you do becasue you're close-minded.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've done all that AC...apart from actually "proving" anything, which I can't.

But I maintain that just becasue I can't prove it, it doesn't mean it's not true.

So there's no point in trying to do something (you already know) can't be done.

I'll ask you again, civilly, because this has gotten off-topic and I am attempting to re-focus it. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking you, as a participant in this debate, to do something.

Step 1: Define what you think objective "crap" is, so we can wrap this up.

Step 2: I want you apply that rationale, that criteria you used to define objective good/bad, to post why you think a song, any song, is objectively GOOD (Say, Lily Allen's Smile or whatever), to the point that YOU BELIEVE it stops being opinion at all. Simple enough, do that for me, please.

If you can do that, to the point that I can NOT deny it, you'll have proven your point.

As an aside, when you've provided the final debate as to what song is objectively good and what makes the song of your choosing objectively good, I will reply with either my conceding or my counter.

-AC

Not gonna do it...sorry...couldn't be bothered...it's pointelss.

Everyone has seen my posts...everyone knows the debate (more or less)...and there's no point continuing on with this piece of the argument.

If you wanna take the philosophical piece of the argument and discuss that, then that would be productive.

Otherwise, there's no point going over the same stuff about Brittney, and the same stuff about informed opinions explaining my argument about crap.

Now, if you consider that defeat...so be it.

I'll ask you a third and final time, fairly to do so.

In the event that your answer is "No", I will go back and quote the post in which you explained your full debate previously, and use that to reply to, since you won't do it now, because you know what'll happen.

Your choice.

-AC

OK...I'll just refer to something I already said...because there's no point saying it again.

This says it all (in regards to your questions).

Read it again...carefully.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But all my argument ever was is that some music is crap. I've always said it's difficult to suggest something like "The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones".

But Brittney Spears is an example of what I say is crap music. And the set of criterion I've used to try and determine this is...


Her music is unoriginal...and even her own songs sound the same as each other.

Her music is forcefully marketed, as it contains contemporary sounds and rhythms strictly to sell a product (and in the process, hindering musical creativity).

Her music is contrived.

Her music has little-to-no emotion.

Her music has no substance.

She uses sex and an image to sell her music.

Her music lacks depth.

Her music doesn't have any particularly good instrumentation or singing.

Her music is not innovative.

Her lyrics aren't particularly clever, interesting, or insightful.

Her music doesn't have any soul.

Her music is disposable and easily forgettable (and that's different form being catchy).

Her voice doesn’t have emotion and isn't expressive.


Now, even though I'd say that NONE of those apply to Jimi Hendrix, lets just stick to Brittney for now.


So you say that even criteria comes down to opinion.

I argue that people who have informed opinions about music and use such criteria (although they probably don't do it as consciously) will more or less tend to agree with each other that Brittney is crap.

And this is because they've heard and they know what music is considered to be innovative...to have substance...to have soul...to have good instrumentation. Their opinions are informed. For example, they listened to a Jimi Hendrix album...thought it was innovative, had soul, etc...and those thoughts were re-affirmed by their other informed peers. And this happened again with other music...and again...until they started to realize that music experts are often agreeing on the same stuff being good music (and the same stuff being crap).

So I don't think you can just say "it depends on what someone's taste is" when it comes to determining if music is bad or not.

And really, it's becasue there truly is music that is "bad", and truly is music that is "not bad". It's obvious.

Who cares if you can't prove it with facts. It's a reality.
People were disagreeing with me...read that...and then said they understand what I'm saying.

It's a surprise that you don't.

I'll know if I'm on the mark, because I'm quoting your exact post.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The point being, informed opinion based on determining factors (originality, innovation, emotion, etc...) should be used to look at if music is crap or not. It's not like good music has to have ALL of these, but a crap song usually has little-to-none of these.

Not everyone who listens to the radio has an infromed opinion about whether or not a song is crap.

But there IS such a thing as crap music, crap food, and crap fashion. It exists, regardless of what your taste is regarding it.

It can't necessarily be proven by facts as suggested in the thread description, but it can be recognized by informed opinion...not always, but more often than not.

So, your explanation for what makes a song objectively good is as follows:

A song that contains emotion, originality, innovation...and I believe you said soul, this would be considered objectively good. See your above quote for that. You applied this to Lily Allen's music, to which I can credibly say; No, I don't think she has any soul. She's not genuine, she sings with an annoying, almost monotonous voice, which is lacks any emotion and she isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

To that, you cannot prove me wrong, so that would mean your entire argument is bullshit. To which you would say, as evidenced in the quote; "It can't be proven by facts, but it can be recognised by informed opinion.". Not only do you admit it cannot be proven, but you admit that the only weight you have is informed opinion, which is still no close to being true NOR factual, as regular opinion. To further my point, there are many informed opinions that agree with me, there are many informed opinions that agree with your opinion that she makes good music. Point? It's all subjective, there is no objectively good music.

The failsafe of "It can't be proven!" only lasted for a page or two, not even that. It's gone, EPIIIBITES.

In summation, it's entirely down to preference, there is no objectivity there. Yet we can all agree that your predicted reply with be "You don't get it." or something of equal ignorance. I'm not sure how many times you will have to be smacked around in this debate, but it's clearly one too many.

But go ahead, "You don't get it, blind, pointless.".

In fact; Name me some artists or bands you feel are objectively not good. Then we will see if anybody here likes those bands music, and you can tell them how wrong they are too, and see what they say about it. Just to prove that it's not me, which I think you believe it is, as opposed to it being hard fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Jimi (It's not Jimmy, to everyone who keeps spelling it wrong.)

his momma named him jimmy, im calling him jimmy

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"sucking" with regards to his MUSIC, NOT TALENT, is pure opinion. It's not wrong, it may be a less credible opinion, but it's not wrong.

-AC

they are not seperate issues though. while its possible for one with talen to suck (subjectively) its very possible for someone without talent to suck factually in regards to the music they play.

Originally posted by Schecter
they are not seperate issues though. while its possible for one with talen to suck (subjectively) its very possible for someone without talent to suck factually in regards to the music they play.

It's not. You could not factually prove that a Britney Spears fan is wrong to say "She makes good music.". Because chances are, that fan is not speaking for you, she's speaking for herself, her tastes. You, in turn, saying her music sucks, are speaking for your own.

There is no objectivity there.

Conversely, all the talent in the world does not mean you will make good music. There are many bands considerably less instrumentally talented than Dream Theater, but that does not remove from me being able to say "I think Dream Theater make dull, trite music.".

Talent on an instrument doesn't guarantee good tunes, less talent doesn't guarantee bad, but we're not discussing how good someone plays, we're discussing what comes out of it, and whether THAT is good or bad is entirely subjective depending on who is listening.

-AC

i guess i have to exhagerate. lets say i go on stage and fart in the mic. i say that its actually music imho and also imho good music. am i factually incorrect or is my opinion valid?

Originally posted by Schecter
i guess i have to exhagerate. lets say i go on stage and fart in the mic. i say that its actually music imho and also imho good music. am i factually incorrect or is my opinion valid?

A) I think we have to realise you are making an exaggeration of ridiculous proportions, because a fart isn't music. It's a singular sound, not a song that some could consider to be bad.

B) A fart is not music, so it couldn't be considered music. If, however, you said "I think that sounds good.", it would be entirely subjective. Nobody could prove you wrong by saying it sounds bad, because it's not objective.

You know as well as I do what my point is, so I see no need to be a pragmatist, but whatever.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


And to be precise, I'm not agreeing that truth is proven by fact...I'm saying that truth can can exist apart from facts. There aren't facts that can always prove a truth.


Sometimes there are (ie. a thermometer and the sun)...but sometimes there aren't (as in what the truth is about killing being wrong)



You're talking about evidence. Not the difference between truth and facts.

Precisely.

There wasn't always evidence that could prove that the Earth was round, but the FACT and TRUTH is, it always has been.

Fact and truth are one, and that IS a fact, and that is why your debate is finished, because your debate rests on them not being so.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You applied this to Lily Allen's music, to which I can credibly say; No, I don't think she has any soul. She's not genuine, she sings with an annoying, almost monotonous voice, which is lacks any emotion and she isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before.
Who cares what YOU think AC.

And even if you have an informed opinion (which I really don't think you do)...you're the minority in this case (as people with informed opinions might sometimes be).
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To further my point, there are many informed opinions that agree with me, there are many informed opinions that agree with your opinion that she makes good music. Point? It's all subjective, there is no objectively good music.
Again. Far more informed opinions have said that she has made one of the best pop abums in recent years...and very few say that she's crap.

That's says A LOT about what I'm claiming is the truth about the topic...regardless if it proves it or not.

You still DO NOT GET IT!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In summation, it's entirely down to preference
No it's not. Absolutely not.

In summation, you just don't GET my argument...and it seems you never will.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I think we have to realise you are making an exaggeration of ridiculous proportions, because a fart isn't music. It's a singular sound, not a song that some could consider to be bad.

first off, as far as the "singular sound" you are wrong. farts are not like car horns, there are many tones and sounds which are produced. the sqeaker for example.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) A fart is not music, so it couldn't be considered music. If, however, you said "I think that sounds good.", it would be entirely subjective. Nobody could prove you wrong by saying it sounds bad, because it's not objective.

You know as well as I do what my point is, so I see no need to be a pragmatist, but whatever.

-AC

i know i was being silly, but still ac, its valid. lets say i start a farting quartet and develope a following (with the addition of hired strippers dancing on stage and giving out free lapdances) lets say i just pluck one string over and over and over. lets just say that. then what> thats the entire show...me plucking one string over and over, and i call it music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who cares what you think AC.

And even if you have an informed opinion (which I really don't think you do)...you're the minority in this case (as some with informed opinions might often be).

It doesn't matter whether an opinion is informed or not, because neither are any closer to being fact. They are both still opinion.

The uninformed opinion of a Britney fan, or the informed on of a Hendrix fan. Both are still opinion, neither are true, neither are correct nor are they wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again. Far more informed opinions have said she has made one of the best pop abums in recent years...and very few say that she's crap. That's says A LOT about what I'm claiming is the truth about the topic...regardless if it proves it or not.

That doesn't mean either is true. It means you have seen a lot of praise, I have seen a lot of praise also. I have also seen a lot of negativity toward her, and those too have been informed opinions.

So you see, it really is all opinion, and if opinions are personal and subjective beliefs, what does that say?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You still DO NOT GET IT!

There it is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No it's not. Absolutely not.

In summation, you just don't GET my argument. ..and it seems you never will.

Shut up, you're beaten.

-AC

Originally posted by Schecter
i know i was being silly, but still ac, its valid. lets say i start a farting quartet and develope a following (with the addition of hired strippers dancing on stage and giving out free lapdances) lets say i just pluck one string over and over and over. lets just say that. then what> thats the entire show...me plucking one string over and over, and i call it music.

If it sounds good to you, then that's how it goes, it's entirely subjective.

It doesn't matter if you are the only one on stage who thinks the sounds you produce with a musical instrument are good, and everyone in the arena doesn't think it sounds good, you would not be wrong, because it's entirely dependent on the opinion of the listener.

We're not discussing playing talent. Plenty of guitarists with talent can make shit music. Talent does not mean good music.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't matter whether an opinion is informed or not, because neither are any closer to being fact. They are both still opinion.
You're doing it again AC!!

You're blocking things out!!

I already showed how an informed opinion POINTS to what I say is the truth about something...it DEMONSTRATES it in an overwhelmingly consensual fashion.

And then what you do is simply point to it not actually PROVING anything...(as if I've EVER argued that it could).

No...you're blocking out the overwhelming reality that people with informed opinions about music tend to more or less agree on the same artists being crap (and the same artists being "not crap".

You've never ONCE tried to explain why that is...because you know you got NOTHING!

I, however, have elaboratly explained why that is. And people who have been patient enough and open-minded enough have understood me.


YOU'RE the one who's beaten I'm afraid to say (and I think you know it in the back of your mind).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Talent does not mean good music.

-AC

good music requires talent. no talent leads to bad music. imho you cant seperate talent and quality of music like oil and water, like it seems you're attempting

:edit: maybe you're confusing talent with technique and style?

In summation, your argument is that people you think are smart and cool think some particular singers are good and since they are smart and cool it's a universal truth.

Let me make the counterargument simple: good vocals + soulful tune + originality and talent does not equal good music. good vocals + soulful tune + originality and talent = good vocals + soulful tune + originality and talent.

In the same way that: music has little-to-no emotion + music has no substance + music lacks depth + music doesn't have any particularly good instrumentation or singing DOES NOT EQUAL good music. It's just non-emotional music, with no substance, etc.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're doing it again AC!!

You're blocking things out!!

You're the one dodging everything I say.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I already showed how an informed opinion POINTS to what I say is the truth about something...it DEMONSTRATES it in an overwhelmingly consensual fashion.

What YOU say is the truth? Newsflash: You don't get to make up truths, they either exist or they do not, and the one you propose does not.

It does not MATTER if it's overwhelming in a consensus, it's still JUST OPINION. This means it is STILL SUBJECTIVE.

Lots does not mean right.

Originally posted by Schecter
good music required talent. no talent leads to bad music. imho you cant seperate talent and quality of music like oil and water, like it seems you're attempting.

No talent leads to NO music. You have a talent somewhere if you can even make music with instruments to begin with. I don't like Fall Out Boy, they're just famous, they're not massively talented, but they can play musical instruments, obviously. It does not matter what you can or cannot do on your instrument. If you have the base ability to use it, and in using it you make what ANYBODY considers to be good music, even with a voice, then that is their opinion and it is not wrong nor right.

"Good music" is entirely subjective. There is no fact, truth or objectivity in there. Nobody can deny Dave Lombardo's skill as a drummer, but there are people who hate Slayer's songs. They're not wrong.

-AC

EPIIIBITES is just posting for the sake of it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

No talent leads to NO music. You have a talent somewhere if you can even make music with instruments to begin with.

talent does not equal the ability to simply and literally pick up an instrument and produce sounds with it. anyone with fingers can accomplish this. i agree that those with less talent can produce better music than those with far more talent. perfect example: i love the ramones and hate ted nugent.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Good music" is entirely subjective. There is no fact, truth or objectivity in there. Nobody can deny Dave Lombardo's skill as a drummer, but there are people who hate Slayer's songs. They're not wrong.

-AC

yes they would be wrong. to deny slayer is to discredit one's self utterly and eternally.

which one did you pick AC? i picked the second one.

Originally posted by Schecter
talent does not equal the ability to simply and literally pick up an instrument and produce sounds with it. anyone with fingers can accomplish this. i agree that those with less talent can produce better music than those with far more talent. perfect example: i love the ramones and hate ted nugent.

Yes, and it's a skill, a talent. It doesn't mean they are a talented guitarist, it means they possess the talent that is the ability to play the instrument.

Frank Zappa was not an amazing drummer, he did possess talent to play drums though, he was also an amazing writer for the drums.

Originally posted by Schecter
yes they would be wrong. to deny slayer is to discredit one's self utterly and eternally.

They wouldn't be wrong, I do know you know this.

Originally posted by Phat J
which one did you pick AC? i picked the second one.

Why, do you want to pick the opposite of whatever I choose?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It does not MATTER if it's overwhelming in a consensus, it's still JUST OPINION. This means it is STILL SUBJECTIVE.
Thanks for continuing to state the obvious for us AC.


It is opinion...and it is subjective...but it's informed subjective opinion. And when informed subjective opinions come together and all pretty much point to the same thing...you start to see a truth being demonstrated (although not proven by any facts).


Meaning these informed opinions have been tried and true many times over where these people have more often than not agreed that someone like Brittney Spears makes poor music.


There's a reason it's overwheliming in consensus.


Now, you gotta wonder why that is.


I think I know why it is...


Because at the end of the day, there truly is bad music...and people can point to that overwhelmingly time and again.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It is opinion...and it is subjective...but it's informed subjective opinion.

Good boy. So the "Informed" part adds...what? POSSIBLE credibility. Not truth and fact, it adds possible credibility.

There are writers from the NME, a FAMOUS music magazine, that have "informed" opinions on music. They would tell you that Lil' Chris makes good music. Informed just means experience, more or less. Profession does not add anything more.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Meaning it's been tried and true many times over where these people have more often than not agreed that Brittney Spears makes poor music.

So? What's your point? Loads of people agree that she makes poor music, it's not A truth. It's a mass opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
There's a reason it's overwheliming in consensus.

Yeah, they all happen to share an opinion. That's the reason.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Now, you gotta wonder why that is.

Because it's a common opinion, as is the opposing one.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think I know why it is...

Because at the end of the day, there truly is bad music...and people can point to that.

No, people can point to music they think is bad. It will never be a truth.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and it's a skill, a talent. It doesn't mean they are a talented guitarist, it means they possess the talent that is the ability to play the instrument.

dont load my point into a completely different one and then agree with it. you know what i said and what i meant. the ability to plug in an electric guitar and make noise with it (whether that means hitting a string or just throwing it to the ground) does not equal talent and music. if someone listens to the odd sound a guitar makes when hurled at the ground and says "whoa that was cool", does that make it music?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Frank Zappa was not an amazing drummer, he did possess talent to play drums though, he was also an amazing writer for the drums.

i understand. talent does not necessarily mean amazing. never disagreed

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They wouldn't be wrong, I do know you know this.

-AC
IT WAS A FRIKIN JOKE
dude, for real...
unpucker your sphincter a bit and lighten up.
i guess epIII has you in a huff but i assure you this is simply me stating my own views.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Smart? Cool? What?

How about you read this and get caught up before you start just saying whatever...
D-Did you even read the second part of my post? I am quite sure I addressed that.

Just for fun though I'll reply to this "Who cares if you can't prove it with facts. It's a reality."
Reality - The state of being real, yes? Real - true or occurring in fact, yes? True - the actual state of a matter or in conformity with fact. It cannot be reality if there are not facts to support the theory. I'm sorry, no I'm not, but you are wrong, factually.

Originally posted by Schecter
dont load my point into a completely different one and then agree with it. you know what i said and what i meant. the ability to plug in an electric guitar and make noise with it (whether that means hitting a string or just throwing it to the ground) does not equal talent and music. if someone listens to the odd sound a guitar makes when hurled at the ground and says "whoa that was cool", does that make it music?

Hitting a string or throwing it does not equal playing it. If you have the ability to play a guitar properly, it is a skill and a talent. There are billions of levels of talent, saying a beginner has the talent to play the instrument properly does not mean I'm saying he's Hendrix.

To answer your second question, if they want it to, yes. Have you ever heard Fantomas?

Go an listen to Atlantis to Interzone by Klaxons. Like it or not, that's a song and that is music. That song came about by Simon of the band completely messing around with his keyboard, not INTENDING to write or play anything. His literal thought process was "That sounds good.", and to him, it did. So regardless of whether anyone disagrees, neither are right or wrong.

Originally posted by Schecter
i understand. talent does not necessarily mean amazing. never disagreed

Good.

Originally posted by Schecter
dude, for real...
unpucker your sphincter a bit and lighten up.
i guess epIII has you in a huff but i assure you this is simply me stating my own views.

He doesn't have me in a huff, he has me rather confused for reasons stated. What also confuses me is you coming in saying things that are quite obviously untrue. I don't get why you would do that. As a joke, perhaps. I just don't see the continual need to keep playing the pragmatist.

-AC

AC's problem...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I argue that people who have informed opinions about music and use such criteria (although they probably don't do it as consciously) will more or less tend to agree with each other that Brittney is crap.
You're not giving any weight or consideration to this very real point.


THAT'S your problem.


You're blocking out the reality of the situation...simply becasue there's no facts associated with it.


But you're not considering what it might mean in light of my argument about music being "truly" bad, and how these people are demonstrating that, without ever really proving it.


That is why you fail to understand and others don't.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC's problem...

You're not giving any weight or consideration to this very real point.

THAT'S your problem.

You're blocking out the reality of the situation...simply becasue there's no facts associated with it.

You are arguing that people with informed opinions will agree Britney is crap. Ok, so what? So what if they do?

It doesn't mean her music is factually bad, it means loads of people with opinions, informed or otherwise, agree that they THINK her music is bad.

Writers having an "informed" opinion does not make them any more right or less agreeable. Schecter, as a long time listener, has an informed opinion. People on this site have INFORMED opinions, some more so than others.

There are some opinions more or less credible than others, but people agreeing means nothing more than they share an opinion.

YOU assuming that it means something greater is where YOUR problem lies. Your thought process is:

"Loads of people with informed opinions agree...that MUST mean something.". Yes, it means they share an opinion, that's all.

Furthermore, you don't have the right to decide what opinions are informed or not.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


He doesn't have me in a huff, he has me rather confused for reasons stated. What also confuses me is you coming in saying things that are quite obviously untrue. I don't get why you would do that. As a joke, perhaps. I just don't see the continual need to keep playing the pragmatist.

-AC

im expressing my views, however flawed they so obviously and factually are to you. is there a problem? did i invade your clubhouse?
fine ill leave.

You saying "Anyone who denys Slayer being good, discredits themselves." is fine by me, I do get that you are joking. Or, maybe you're not, maybe to you, someone saying they suck lessens your view of them, and that's cool, there's nothing I have a problem with there.

My only point was; Do you actually believe they are factually, truthfully and objectively incorrect to not like Slayer's music? I don't believe that's your opinion, but continually insisting it, even as a joke, had me wondering.

-AC

Originally posted by Eis
It cannot be reality if there are not facts to support the theory. I'm sorry, no I'm not, but you are wrong, factually.
I disagree with that statement...and to think you actually KNOW it's right is claiming quite a lot.

I think in terms of universal truths...and in terms of truths not ALWAYS being provable by fact. Some are...some aren't.

Some truths exists apart from facts proving them.

They're divine.

They're beyond.

They're unprovable.

They're not "AC is a male"...that's a fact.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree with that statement...and to think you actually KNOW it's right is claiming quite a lot.

I think in terms of universal truths...and in terms of truths not ALWAYS being provable by fact. Some are...some aren't.

Some truths exists apart from facts proving them.

They're divine.

They're beyond.

They're unprovable.

This gets better.

It's not incapable of being proven, it HAS been proven, YOU are incapable of accepting that.

But of course, it's not you, WE are all wrong, aren't we?

-AC

Some of them...read the post.

continually? i said it once, punctuated it with a smilie for the slow-witted (not you) and those who would use it as a torch of victory to run with (you)

Originally posted by Schecter

yes they would be wrong. to deny slayer is to discredit one's self utterly and eternally.

Originally posted by Schecter

IT WAS A FRIKIN JOKE



anyway, if someone throws a guitar across a stage and calls it music, i say they are wrong. thats the point i was making. its mostly a gray area yet in some extreme cases its clear what is quality (creative and/or birthed by talent) music and what is not. remember rosanne barr singing the national anthem? not music imho.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree with that statement...and to think you actually KNOW it's right is claiming quite a lot.

I think in terms of universal truths...and in terms of truths not ALWAYS being provable by fact. Some are...some aren't.

Some truths exists apart from facts proving them.

They're divine.

They're beyond.

They're unprovable.

They're not "AC is a male"...that's a fact.
Funny how you don't realize how absurd you sound. Also what I said wasn't an "I agree/I disagree" comment. You are like Christians, whenever one questions their beliefs they hide behind "faith" which is really just Christian-talk for "irrational belief".

Stop embarrassing yourself, you are wrong, say it.

Originally posted by Schecter
anyway, if someone throws a guitar across a stage and calls it music, i say they are wrong. thats the point i was making. its mostly a gray area yet in some extreme cases its clear what is quality (creative and/or birthed by talent) music and what is not. remember rosanne barr singing the national anthem? not music imho.

You made an irrelevant point though. That's like throwing a brick and calling it music. Nobody is suggesting nor debating, what constitutes MUSIC, but what is objectively good or BAD music, which doesn't exist.

If you throw a guitar on stage, some may like the sound, some may not, regardless of whether or not it's music. Those who like the sound and those who do not, are not wrong. You are too hung up on what is considered music, rather than skipping that part and focusing on whether it's possible or not for music in existence to be factually good or bad, which it isn't. Just the music produced.

-AC

Originally posted by Eis
D-Did you even read the second part of my post? I am quite sure I addressed that.
I did...but I didn't clue in that you were referring to my post.

And from what I gather, all you're saying is that music that is missing some of those listed redeemable qualites, simply equals "music that is missing some of those listed redeemable qualites". It doesn't equal "bad music".

But my point is, informed opinions have learned from experience that music that is missing those qualities doesn't last, doesn't stand the test of time, and it seems to get an overwhelmingly negative reaction by other's who have these informed opinions.

So, if overhwelmingly negative reations to certain music by people with informed opinions aren't a sign of that music being bad...then what is?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You made an irrelevant point though. That's like throwing a brick and calling it music. Nobody is suggesting nor debating, what constitutes MUSIC, but what is objectively good or BAD music, which doesn't exist.

you're switching meanings between 'what is and isnt music' and 'what is good and bad music.' imho factually bad music isnt music at all and subjectively bad music is actual music (talent/technique....some remedial ability at least) whether or not many or most dislike it. thats been the point all along.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you throw a guitar on stage, some may like the sound, some may not, regardless of whether or not it's music. Those who like the sound and those who do not, are not wrong. You are too hung up on what is considered music, rather than skipping that part and focusing on what IS music, and whether it's possible or not for music in existence to be factually good or bad, which it isn't.

-AC

i never said that those who like the sound of a guitar thrown across the stage are wrong in liking it. i said they are wrong in calling it music. i already stated this. this is becoming irritating

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But my point is, informed opinions have learned from experience that music that is missing those qualities doesn't last, doesn't stand the test of time, as seems to overwhelmingly get a negative reaction by the other people who have these informed opinions.

So if that's not a sign of music that's bad...then what is?

There isn't, outside of personal opinion.

When you discuss or talk about music, a concrete, factual, objective outlook isn't always needed. Especially in situations where it's nigh impossible to determine anything objective, either because of the relevant facts and evidence necessary for supporting that view are gone, non-existent, or not in big enough quantity (Like your debate, EPIIIBITES.), or because it's the personal opinion that is the important part (This debate.).

-AC

?

Crap. I gotta have breakfast.

Later!



...pretty fun though


EDIT:Originally posted by Eis
Funny how you don't realize how absurd you sound. Also what I said wasn't an "I agree/I disagree" comment. You are like Christians, whenever one questions their beliefs they hide behind "faith" which is really just Christian-talk for "irrational belief".
I'm not being irrational...and I'll demosntrate how in a little bit.

Was this brought up without provocation because someone thought we needed more ****ing drama in the forum?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
?

Crap. I gotta have breakfast.

Later!



...pretty fun though


EDIT:
I'm not being irrational...and I'll demosntrate how in a little bit.

You are the most clueless person I've ever met. Despite being factually wrong, and knowing it (Because you must.), you won't admit it. We all know you're wrong, what worse can you do besides admitting it?

"I don't think I am.".

But you are, proven.

-AC

Originally posted by Cory Chaos
Was this brought up without provocation because someone thought we needed more ****ing drama in the forum?

Drama is fun.

Oh....I've just been informed, it's not.

I'm pretty sure he said it was objective.

Dunno if that messes up your post.

Also not sure how you can still...think that.

Its funny though, for a while EpIII stopped being such a closed-minded dick and actually started making decent posts. I guess that was a tough act to keep up.

I think this is the act, to be honest.

I hope so, anyway.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Capiche?
Obviously...no capiche.


To sum it up...


Just like there was a truth about the weather that existed apart from any available facts (as illustrated in my example), so too does the truth about a song being crap or not exist apart from facts.


The truth is out there...regardless if facts can point to it or not. I have shown how.

And there is ever only one truth...there is one truth about whether a song is crap or not (as there was only one truth about whether it was raining in Spain or not).


As for what AC thinks...he DOES think that whether a song is crap or not is subjective. And he points to simply a person's taste as some kind of measure of this.


How what I'm saying can be discounted is beyond me...but anyway. I'll just keep posting this last piece from now on, cause I'm pretty much done exaplaining it.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Its funny though, for a while EpIII stopped being such a closed-minded dick and actually started making decent posts. I guess that was a tough act to keep up.
And for a while it seemed that you were being civil...wishful thinking I guess.

Good on ya.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Obviously...no capiche.


To sum it up...


Just like there was a truth that existed about the weather apart from any available facts (as illustrated in my example), so too does the truth about whether a song is crap or not exist apart from facts.


The truth is out there...and there is only one truth about whether a song is crap or not (as there was only one truth about whether it was raining in Spain or not).


As for what AC thinks...he DOES think that whether a song is crap or not is subjective. And he points to simply a person's taste as some kind of proof.


How what I'm saying can be discounted is beyond me...but anyway.

But the point you're making isn't whether music exists or not (as it does, in the form of sound), but whether a song is "crap" or not. I don't think objective reality makes a distinction between nice weather and "crappy" weather: we do.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Right now, there is certain weather in Spain.

A guy in Canada claims that it's raining in Spain at the moment. He doesn't have access to any concrete proof about what the weather is like in Spain right now, but thinks he's right for various reasons...maybe because of the time of year it is, or because it's been raining there for the past week, etc...


You're mixing up facts with flawed information. A fact is something that exists in objective reality. What the guy in Canada is claiming to be true is actually a simple case of error, bad sources, what have you. People make mikstakes, as you have throughly exemplified in your argument.





The truth is out there?

This isn't the X-Files, man. Your point is invalid because it has no sound basis. Your argument is flawed (or at least this metaphor is flawed) because you're talking, on the one hand, about something existing objectively (as whether and sound certainly do), but our INTERPRETATION of these phenomena is what makes them good or bad, based on what we ourselves determine as good or bad.

Did you even read my post before?

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath

Consensus among informed critics does not make their opinions fact. It might be a fact that the majority of learned individuals hold a certain opinion based on their expertise, but the music itself is not factually good or factually bad independently of their opinions.



I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. Are you just being stubborn?

Oh don't come back with "You don't understand.", you just posted a novel based on me believing truth is subjective, which I don't.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The truth is out there...regardless if facts can point to it or not.

As stated previously, that is to do with lack of evidence, not truth and fact being different.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And there is ever only one truth...and in this case there is only one truth about whether a song is crap or not (as there was only one truth about whether it was raining in Spain or not).

Precisely, and it's that there is no objective good and bad.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
As for what AC thinks...he DOES think that whether a song is crap or not is subjective. And he points to simply a person's taste as some kind of measure of this.

Yeah. Music being good or bad is subjective, that is truth. This truth is objective. Truth is never subjective.

Topic: Music being objectively good or bad.

My stance: There is no such thing, backed up with proof.

Case in point: Truth is not subjective, but objective. In this case, the truth is that there is no objective in music quality. It's ALL opinion.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How what I'm saying can be discounted is beyond me...but anyway. I'll just keep posting this last piece from now on, cause I'm pretty much done exaplaining it.

EPIIIBITES, there are many things beyond you. You keep posting your last piece and I'll report you for trolling. We get what you believe, it's just wrong. Continual posting it won't make us believe it any more.

If you want to debate this losing battle, continue, but if you're just gonna paste, then don't bother. "Give it up.".

You don't want to admit you are wrong, so you are looking for any excuse to post.

-AC

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Consensus among informed critics does not make their opinions fact. It’s ridiculous to think so. It might be a fact that the majority of learned individuals hold a certain opinion based on their expertise, but the music itself is not factually good or factually bad independently of their opinions. I don't even see why you wrote what you did in the above quote regarding consensus making things fact.

Maybe you missed a lot of my arguments (even before page 5), where I constantly say there is no fact involved in this.

THIS is waht I said about consensus and opinion...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So you say that even criteria comes down to opinion.

I argue that people who have informed opinions about music and use such criteria (although they probably don't do it as consciously) will more or less tend to agree with each other that Brittney is crap.

And this is because they've heard and they know what music is considered to be innovative...to have substance...to have soul...to have good instrumentation. Their opinions are informed. For example, they listened to a Jimi Hendrix album...thought it was innovative, had soul, etc...and those thoughts were re-affirmed by their other informed peers. And this happened again with other music...and again...until they started to realize that music experts are often agreeing on the same stuff being good music (and the same stuff being crap).

So I don't think you can just say "it depends on what someone's taste is" when it comes to determining if music is bad or not.

And really, it's becasue there truly is music that is "bad", and truly is music that is "not bad". It's obvious.

Who cares if you can't prove it with facts. It's a reality.
Yes...the reality that there is SOMEHOW this agreement (and I've just explained why there is this agreement) is what points to or demonstrates there is some kind of truth regarding bad music...even though it doesn't prove it.

As far as I'm concerned...it doesn't have to...and you don't necessarily have to prove something for it to be true in reality.

That's all I have to say regarding that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
If you had read my arguments, I constantly say there is no fact involved in this.

And fact is truth. That is a fact.

So there is no truth in your debate, so you're attempting to MAKE UP a truth.

It's laughable. This is all based around "I don't agree fact is truth.", when it's not up to you. Fact IS truth.

-AC

I wasn't talking to you...hadn't quoted the other guy yet.

I don't care if you were talking to me, it's an open forum.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I don't even see why you wrote what you did in the above quote regarding consensus making things fact.

Maybe you missed a lot of my arguments (even before page 5), where I constantly say there is no fact involved in this.

So if you say:

a) There is no fact involved

b) Fact is equal to truth

then what are you arguing about? Fact and truth are firmly grounded in objective reality. If fact has nothing to do with it, then you must admit that good and bad music is determined by subjective tastes. There is no other option.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
So if you say:

a) There is no fact involved

b) Fact is equal to truth

then what are you arguing about? Fact and truth are firmly grounded in objective reality. If fact has nothing to do with it, then you must admit that good and bad music is determined by subjective tastes. There is no other option.

That's why he tries to drag the philosophy of subjective reality into it, because he's a moron who can't admit that he's wrong, cos that'd mean admitting me, and others, had beaten him.

-AC

What's with all the weak attempts at psychological mindgames to suggest it's just about not admitting something?

Classic AC...again.

I don't agree with it...it doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
EPIIIBITES, there are many things beyond you. You keep posting your last piece and I'll report you for trolling.
Ahhh...and the obligatory threat to report someone just because he doesn't like their discussion tactics.

More classic AC.

What a guy!

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
So if you say:

a) There is no fact involved

b) Fact is equal to truth

then what are you arguing about? Fact and truth are firmly grounded in objective reality. If fact has nothing to do with it, then you must admit that good and bad music is determined by subjective tastes. There is no other option.
I disagree with your fundamental belief that truth can only be proven by fact.

That's what I'm arguing about.

I'm saying there are unproven truths that exist...that I guess, only God could prove.

And an example I've given is "killing is wrong" is a TRUTH.

I don't care if you think it isn't...and I don't care if you think it just comes down to opinion. I say it's a universal truth...and for all you know, I could darn well be right.

So don't sit there (AC too, and whoever else there might be) and PRETEND you KNOW the converse of what I'm saying. That's quite lofty of you.

Because at the end of the day...you just DON'T.

Don't fool yourselves in thinking that you ACTUALLY have some kind of logical, factual explanation that gives your argument credence and discounts mine, simply because modern science says "truths are provable by fact".

Pleeeease.

The real truth about "truths" goes far beyond modern science.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree with your fundamental belief that truth can only be proven by fact.

That's what I'm arguing about.

I'm saying there are unproven truths that exist...that I guess, only God could prove.

Well, unless you're God, you're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone besides yourself that you're right.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree with your fundamental belief that truth can only be proven by fact.

That's what I'm arguing about.

I'm saying there are unproven truths that exist...that I guess, only God could prove.

But...you...are...wrong.

What do you not grasp about that? You think that because it's a belief you have faith in, it's automatically got some unbreakable shield?

-AC

It appears you guys didn't read all of this (plus I added some stuff)...here it is again...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree with your fundamental belief that truth can only be proven by fact.

That's what I'm arguing about.

I'm saying there are unproven truths that exist...that I guess, only God could prove.

And an example I've given is "killing is wrong" is a TRUTH.

I don't care if you think it isn't...and I don't care if you think it just comes down to opinion. I say it's a universal truth...and for all you know, I could darn well be right.

So don't sit there (AC too, and whoever else there might be) and PRETEND you KNOW the converse of what I'm saying. That's quite lofty of you.

Because at the end of the day...you just DON'T.

Don't fool yourselves in thinking that you ACTUALLY have some kind of logical, factual explanation that gives your argument credence and discounts mine, simply because modern science says "truths are provable by fact".

Pleeeease.

The real truth about "truths" goes far beyond modern science.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I disagree with your fundamental belief that truth can only be proven by fact.

That's what I'm arguing about.

I'm saying there are unproven truths that exist...that I guess, only God could prove.

And an example I've given is "killing is wrong" is a TRUTH.

I don't care if you think it isn't...and I don't care if you think it just comes down to opinion. I say it's a universal truth...and for all you know, I could darn well be right.

So don't sit there (AC too, and whoever else there might be) and PRETEND you KNOW the converse of what I'm saying. That's quite lofty of you.

Because at the end of the day...you just DON'T.


Who ever said killing was wrong? Is that a truth? In America, people are put to death (capital punishment) by the government. In war, people are killed in thousands, sometimes more. Animals kill other animals so that they can survive. It is not any kind of truth. It is subjective. It is consensus reality.

At the end of the day, nobody knows what you're saying because you haven't explained it in a way that makes any real sense to anyone other than yourself.

Faith-based opinions (and it IS an opinion) usually don't go far in a debate.

Did you get that, or do you need to hear it again?
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The real truth about "truths" goes far beyond modern science.