A stadium full of England football fans disagreeing with a ref's call against their side doesn't point to anything...a panel of referees disgreeing with the ref's call does.
Same goes for here...and this coincides with a big part of my argument. I hope you can make the connection.
PS. I was asked to repost my argument as a whole...please wait 'till I've done that.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 21st, 2007 at 01:20 AM
If the ref sees a man factually committing a foul that a stadium full of biased supporters did not see and not agree with based on principle, it doesn't matter what they think, cos they are factually wrong.
If Rooney headbutted a man at an angle nobody but the ref could see, but he DID do it, it wouldn't matter how much anyone loves him, he'd be factually wrong and deserve to be sent off.
We're the refs. It doesn't matter how much you kick and scream, you're wrong, but here's a little something;
You wanna go up to everybody in this thread, who have informed opinions of music (That is fact, you don't get to decide that.), who in an overwhelming consensus, believe you are talking bullshit and have proven you wrong, and say:
"I don't think a truth needs to be PROVEN in order to actually be a truth in the TRUEST SENSE OF THE WORD. That sounds like a contradiction in terms to you...it doesn't to me...because I'm saying something greater has decided what is actually the truth about anything. So I'm saying it then exists as a truth ("truth" as the creator defines it), even if we as humans haven't been able to prove it to be a truth ("truth" as SOME humans define it...but that I don't agree with).
We, in our small capacity, define a truth as something that requires proof to determine it as such. I say, the truth about whether a certain song is crap music exists, the truth about whether a particular dish is crap cuisine exists, and even the truth about whether a person is a crappy human being exists.
I say, thinking that all those are up to opinon is just plain wrong. And to think that you actually KNOW that you're right in saying I can't argue what I'm arguing in this case means you're pretty much the creator of the universe.".
You know what a LARGE MAJORITY will say to that?:
"You are wrong, you are attempting to establish an objective truth that applies to everyone based on a faith-derived belief that is entirely subjective, without any sound reasoning, structure or proof. You ignore the literary and scientific definitions laid out before you and call anyone that offers a rebuttal, ignorant, simply because you can't grasp or admit the fact that you are wrong, factually and objectively.".
And that's what I'm saying to you.
So to echo the sentiments of VVD again:
"What does the consensus opposing your argument point to, Epibites?
They call it something, in chess.".
But of course, to you, in your little mind, if you don't stop posting; you haven't lost.
Can someone tell me why this is guy keeps posting what he does...when I've said I'm not responding to my posts he's replying to because they don't represent my argument? Really.
You just wasted more time AC...keep going...please.
I'm in awe of how insufferable you are AC. Sorry, but I really am.
This is very strange and compulsive behaviour.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 21st, 2007 at 01:28 AM
when i think about it, yes. there is such a thing as inherently good music. it would probably be defined by the measure of skill and talent that went into the making of it.
No, there's not, I'm afraid. As proven in this thread, beyond all deniability, by many of us. Let's see why you came to that conclusion, though.
I regret to say you are wrong, because that proves skill, not quality of music. Skill and ability are proveable, how each person perceives the music is not wrong or right, and there is no inherent standard.
As I proved before, Dream Theater are technically flawless, skillful musicians, but whether you think their music is good or not is entirely up to you. There's no inherent good or bad.
I could show you many Dream Theater albums and you could hate all of them, despite the skill and talent, yet you like Coldplay, a band who are technically nothing special, but you like their songs, and I don't, and neither of us is wrong.
Instrumental skill and talent does not necessarily make good music, and "good" is subjective. To you, good is Coldplay and Gwen Stefani.
Let it be known that I don't agree with you that many opinions point to a truth. They don't. I merely pointed out the idiocy of such a claim, and how it condemns your position to defeat either way.
It certainly may be true that there are truths that cannot be proven by us. A truth doesn't need to be proven before it is true. However, this isn't relevant to an argument that is so clearly based upon preference.
Your consensus of opinions on this thread (as you brought up) matters as much as the consensus of opinions of a stadium full of football spectators.
It'd be a panel of other referees' opinions which would matter in determining if the ref made the right call or not (which is something refs fail to do on occasion). That's what I'm saying.
You're saying I've blundered my argument (as I'm suggesting a ref might've blundered a call). But it doesn't matter if the consensus here thinks I've erred (which if you look at the poll, isn't as overwhelming as I'm suggesting a consensus on something like Catwoman might be).
If I like the movie Catwoman, I'll let the Canne's judging panel decide if I in fact like a truly crappy film, thank you very much.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 21st, 2007 at 06:15 PM
In the meantime, I'd be curious to see what people here consider to be some of the greatest albums ever made...
As for myself...here's 7 of the 10 that I've listed as being some of the greatest albums recorded. I own and love all these albums, and it's easy to recognize the genius in each of them upon the first listen.
Dark Side of the Moon -Floyd
Pet Sounds - Beach Boys
Rumours - Mac
Revolver - Beatles
Are You Experienced? - Jimmy
Led Zeppelin - Zep
Nevermind - Nirvana
(Hmmmm...I wonder how those fair with what other people who have informed opinions have said regarding some of the greatest ever albums)
And as a side note: There other albums that are closer to my heart, but I wouldn't say are as great as these.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 21st, 2007 at 06:28 PM
Three posts in a row, AGAIN, can you stop that? It's pathetic. Is your mind capable of thinking "I want to say this." and then putting it in one post, or not?
How about you stop saying "Almost done." and actually shut up until you are done?
No, you don't get it.
No matter how strongly the fans believe it wasn't a foul, if the ref sees that it factually was, nothing will change that. We are in the position of the ref, we know for a fact that you are wrong, and no matter how much you shout that you're not, you are.
Ours is not a consensus of opinion, it's a consensus of fact, because it's based on factual info and truth. You are trying to establish an objective truth based on a higher power, which in itself is subjective.
The poll itself was not to prove anything, it exists because you asked for one. You said I would get spanked if there was a poll, and I'm not. I do not need the poll, the poll means nothing at all. I could be winning by a hundred, it doesn't matter. My argument, and the argument of many here, does not require your agreement, because it's fact.
Then you're an idiot for letting others' opinions decide whether you believe something is crap or not. You are essentially saying that because it's their job, regardless of it being total opinion, you will let them tell you that you like a factually crap movie.
In fact, they probably wouldn't even do that. If you said "I like what I like, there's no factual good or bad." they likely wouldn't disagree. They'd just disagree that it's a good movie. They wouldn't say they are right and you are wrong.
You don't have an informed opinion, you just listen to what critics opinions say and then just agree, you're a sheep. You didn't "recognise" anything, you decided that you would just accept it.
As for your list; Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys and Are You Experienced? by The Jimi Hendrix Experience are the only two I would personally consider to be in the greatest albums ever catagory. It doesn't matter how often the others come up, it's not a fact that they're the greatest. It's a fact that they're CONSIDERED the greatest, it's a fact that critics share that opinion, it's not a fact that they are, though.
For one: Justin Timeberlack makes solid pop albums...I know you probably don't think so, but that's expected, as most people tend to unfairly write off pop music because...it's pop music. Smart.
And second: with awards...best dance single, R&B video, or best "vocal" (which is the strangest category I've ever heard...vocal?), you gotta wonder whether or not the categories themselves are a good reflection of the quality of the actual music AS A WHOLE.
Please...let me finish writing my argument, and stop posting new ones.
PS. I can't stop replying if people are posting arguments that require replying to. I'd appreciate if we wait for the discussion on the specific agrument at hand
No, I love plenty of pop music. I'm one person that doesn't see the point in writing off a genre, because there's enough music in every single genre for there to be some good in it. What you don't understand is, I write him off cos I think he's shit, you think he's good, there's no fact or truth there.
He makes pop albums, simple as. Whether or not they're "solid" or "good" isn't objective. As I am proving.
Quality of music. QUALITY OF MUSIC.
Quality differs from person to person. HOW are you not getting this? Just because you choose to say "I believe a higher power decides, not me.", doesn't mean it's true. We are proving otherwise, and you ignore it.
Be quiet and finish it then. We're not forcing you to post, you are.
It takes me seconds to type out my replies, and I do so in one post. You are taking days to write a novel of what will probably be everything we've seen before, that we will all refute again, and you will ignore it.
A) If the ref sees a player make a factual foul, and it's shown on the replay, it's a factual call. There's no debating whether or not it's a foul if someone hacks a player down without touching the ball.
B) Funny isn't it? You are so eager to reply to each and every little thing right now, but when it was just our arguments Vs yours, you refused to.
Is this the kind of opinion you people are supporting?
Factual calls made on factual fouls?
Is it even necessary to point out the very irony here to AC in regards to his own argument?
It's ok...I'll let other do that for themseleves.
Note: But of course, AC will never admit he's goofed...he never does...I've never once seem him admit he's wrong...whereas I and others I know do it quite often. It's the civilized thing to do when you've realized you're wrong.
__________________
Last edited by EPIIIBITES on Apr 21st, 2007 at 06:49 PM
A foul in football is when a tackle is made and there is contact with the player, not the ball. I'm NOT saying refs can't get these calls wrong, I'm saying they CAN get them undeniably right, and there will still be people who want to shout and scream because it's against their team.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 21st, 2007 01:18 AM
