It's actually reeeeally easy, all you gotta do is not worry about being afraid someone will throw the "proof" argument at you...'cause there isn't any anyways. But someone like you is so caught up with having people maybe think you're illogical that you won't let yourself be cool enough to see the real deal...Yep.
Led Zeppelin = Tim Burton's Batman
Nickleback = Joel Schumacher's Batman
Have I gotten one wrong yet?
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 6th, 2007 at 08:11 AM
Not only do I think they're uglier than shit, I've worked on enough in my lifetime to tell you, that despite the fact that fuel-efficiency and handling are their only good points, they're prone to a lot of electrical ailments.
It's no mystery why those Korean cookie-cutter cars are so cheap in the US.
Which I can prove mechanically and tehcnically, and therefore objectively.
Name any Kia model, and I'll name a like-size and like-class Chevy model, and by comparing stats and raw mechanical facts, the Chevy will blow it out of the water.
Ya. I see that, and I agree with you...objectively
Right again...in ALL aspects...it "is". Don't be afraid to say what you really mean. Kias are junk, all across the board.
And it's no surprise that a large amount of eminent automobile professionals who make "best and worst cars" lists, as well as "ugliest cars" lists, would agree with you...the same way a large amount of eminent music professionals would tend to agree that Led Zepellin are infinitely superior to Nickleback.
Just 'cause things are spelled out as fact anywhere, doesn't mean they're just not true.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 6th, 2007 at 08:30 AM
It's not a fact that they are better looking you idiot. It's no more a fact than there are factually good looking women, or...good music.
He's not admitting it because he doesn't agree, what are you talking about? He has no reason to agree with me for the sake of it, we're not best friends.
Technically, but we're not talking technically, we're talking preference.
Because that can be proven.
It can't be proven which cars look nice..
It so funny how desperate you are, and how foolish you are. Well, it's not funny at all, it's sad, borderline trolling.
He and others can prove technical superiority, though.
He cannot prove which cars look better, and he said so himself, but yet again you cut that out of his post and twisted it to make it look like he was agreeing with you, cos you're a mug.
It's still their opinion. "Professional" comes from the word "Profession", job, line of work. It doesn't mean everything you say is fact, otherwise Nickleback would know more than us by default.
A lot of music professionals would AGREE that Zeppelin are better, it doesn't mean it's true. Not when it comes to their music.
You can prove technically that they are better skilled, not that their music is better.
No, but this isn't true. You are wrong, fact. Fact.
Can we ban people based on sheer ignorance? Please? I can't believe this "debate" is still going on. It's embarassing to be honest. As are all these desperate, elementary analogies.
Opinions are offered...obviously...but my claim is that some of these opinions (whether some of those people realise it or not) might actually be reflecting what the objective reality is about that particular thing....and yes...there is an objective reality.
It speaks volumes how a statement like that is constantly making you and others here feel uncomfortable...maybe it's perhaps deep down inside...where you might not wanna (or can't) look, it's making you feel inadequate...
Oh and what, you wanna ban a person because they have a different opinion of objective truths than you??? That's rich.
So you would ban Plato and other great ancient Greek philosophers becasue you can't comprehend what they meant by objective truths (including beauty). Yeah...that's right...I'm in that company.
Wanting to ban people for fundamentally disagreeing with you...that's a pretty pathetic stance (and a very telling reaction about you)
*Real original post by the way. You should congradulate yourself. Go ahead, take a bow for offering something new to the table.
Difference is...and this is no joke...I've offer a variey of new things every day. You and others are simpy...IT'S NOT FACT...THAT'S YOUR OPINION...DUUUUUUUUH!!!
Marvelous! Well Done!
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 6th, 2007 at 04:06 PM
- I, EPIIIBITES, claim that truth is objective. It's not based on opinion. I know it makes you wanna rip your hair out becasue it's all so new and foreign to you...but it's true. -
Now, instead of lashing out like little babies like some of you are doing, offer some intelligent arguments to the contrary...otherwise...just deal with it. Yes, deal with the specific fact that I claim truth (including the truth about good music) is objective. Don't yell at me and call me names because I have a different opinion. For heck's sake some of you, grow up.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 6th, 2007 at 04:15 PM
You started this stupid argument...you should know people on these forums will never stop arguing until their dead. Believe me, they will argue until this thread reaches over 1,000 pages.
First of all, don't bother bringing philosophy and whatever other existentialistic claims into this. "Objective reality"? Objective reality may have been plausible in medieval philosophy, but nowadays, people are little more adept than to just go along with believing that there's a "baseless, popular truth" out there pertaining to things. "Objective reality" leaves no room for the execution of free will and thinking.
You've complicated this so far beyond where it should have ended, it's borderline obsession.
Secondly, I'm not at all uncomfortable. I'm embarassed for you, frankly. Don't you ****ing dare to psychoanalyze me either, guy. Albeit jokingly, I would have you banned because your stubborn approach to this seemingly open and shut debate has only exasperated things to a spectacular degree. People try to prove you wrong, and you persist with the same flawed logic, then you babble on with these incongruent analogies, calling people "dinasours" just because they don't agree with said analogies with mo....
You know what. Nevermind. You're holding yourself in the same company as Plato. You're clearly delusional, kiddo. Institutionalization is your only hope, because KMC surely doesn't want you here anymore.
Take a ****ing hint. Music is subjective. Goodbye.
Yeah...I've planned to stop when I've exhausted pretty much every argument I can think of...and I'm more or less there. This thread seems like it's going on for as long as it is becasue there are NUMEROUS people saying EXACTLY the same thing, instead of bringing different points forward like I have been.
I didn't want to overtly bring philosophy into it, but at this point I felt I had to...becasue this is indeed a philosophical debate (especially after we got on the topic of beauty)...scared of the bug "P" word are you? This argument involves the very same claims that Plato made about objective truths.
My point being (and why I say i'm in that company)...a) I GET the philosophy of it (and believe me, once you get it, there's no turning back), and b) I'm clearly not alone in my claims.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:50 AM
My claim is tough and may push your established beliefes, but to have it bother you that much is really kinda strange...
And I'm not surprised so many people here don't get it right away. All I'm doing is urging people to go a step further. But no...it's just SOOOO offensive and threatening to people's pre-established, comfortable little worlds that they gotta lash out.........
...........
.......
....
RELAX! It's a discussion board!
And if it's getting you wound up, then don't take part. I'm not swearing at anyone or attacking people...
I used the word "dinasour"...OH MY!! It's supposed to be silly, silly.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:02 AM
Music is subjective. Shutup and stop acting like your the smartest human being on the planet. And don't even respond with a stupid comment like the one above. Music. Is. Subjective. Deal. With. It.
I already said I hate The Police...BUT I don't think they're crap. I'm not saying, have never said, or would ever say taste is objective (and I've told you this already).
I'm NOT using my taste to measure good music!
The Police have all the qualities of a decent band, but they rub me the wrong way, they don't strike a chord with me, they don't turn my crank...I don't like them!!!
But I realise I'm bigger than my likes and dislikes. I can see that they have TONS of redeemable musical qualities (unlike Brittney Spears), and I can just tell that they're not crap.
But still, a lot of you guys are at a point where you just say..."I don't like this band...they're crap."
But I say..."This band is crap"...regardless if I don't like them.
Good music to me is objective. And as I've said before, it's hard to judge when it's The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones, but it's darn EASY and darn OBVIOUS when it's Aretha Franklin vs. Rheanna!!!
(And WHO CARES if you like Rheanna...you're WRONG).
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:32 AM
It's not a philosophical debate, it's not a debate anymore. You are wrong, have been since the start and will forever be. It's just the thread remaining open, the debate isn't. Every time you post, I prove you wrong, then you ignore me and continue posting, that's what this is.
Oh, and "Beliefes?". Yeah, you're in the company of Plato alright....the plate spinner from North Grimsby, not the philosopher.
YOU SHOULD be using your taste to measure what music is good TO YOU. If it's good to you, it's good to you. There is no set decision over what is good or bad. There is no music that is definitely good or bad regardless of WHAT you think. What you think is what it is to you, it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree, or WHO.
Yet somehow you claim they are a great band who make good music.
This is why you're a retard.
No, you're choosing to believe they aren't crap just because you feel that's what you should do. You don't like them, so it's stupid to say you think they make good music.
Saying "I don't like them, but I can see why people would." is fine, because that's suggesting that you can see what makes them likeable, despite not liking them. It's nothing objective.
I say that because if I don't like a band, they are crap to me. I don't say it like it's a fact because it's not. I deal with me and me alone, because it's all relative, all subjective. There is no definite quality.
But they're not. Nothing is objectively crap or good.
TO YOU it's objective because you're a moron, to people who know what the factual deal is, it's subjective. The truth isn't what should be, the truth is what is, and there IS no objective good or bad music.
Obvious, not factual.
You're wrong for liking Lily Allen, let's try that.
You are factually wrong for liking her. No, don't argue back, you just can't perceive correctly, and I've decided that you can't, and that you're too scared to admit she's objectively crap, so therefore you are wrong.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 6th, 2007 08:05 AM
No contest, ese.
