Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Whatever.We disagree.
I feel ill.
Before you start scrolling up to quote your previous posts as an answer to this one, explain what the difference between universal truths and facts is.
Originally posted by Eis
You do understand that even if the general consensus is that Lily Allen's music is good it doesn't make it a truth, right?
And I NEVER said that this consensus of informed opinion MAKES it a truth...I said it POINTS TO or DEMONSTRATES what I think is the case about certain music actually being truly crap. It SUGGESTS what I think is a truth that exists.
I'm tired of you and others completely not getting the intricacies of what I say.
Every second post, someone completely misquotes what I say...and it's clear that this is because they haven't understood what my points are.
Originally posted by Eis
You keep pretending there's a difference between fact and truth, there is not, fact.Before you start scrolling up to quote your previous posts as an answer to this one, explain what the difference between universal truths and facts is.
1st
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.
and 2nd
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 exist 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.
There
And I won't be around to argue this tomorrow...but my whole argument is right above.
If there's anything you want to contribute, chew on this...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I didn't see any arguments that tried to challenge..."because through experience, people with informed opinions start to see a trend between the music they consider crap, and the music their peers consider crap. So there is very often a consensus when it comes to crap music. That says something about the music itself...even though what it's saying can't be proven...it still says something"...haven't heard anything that further discusses this.
People with informed opinions can usually agree if something truly isn't innovative, has substance, has soul, or has good instrumentation, because their impressions of the music they check out are often re-affirmed by others with informed opinions.
How is it that there VERY OFTEN seems to be this mutual understanding of what sucks?
I AGREE WITH THAT!
I'm looking at simply the event of the frequent consensus that exists and what that says (which I think speaks volumes).
I mean, don’t do this…
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Them sharing that opinion still does not mean there is any OBJECTIVE good or bad. It means they agree on what they THINK is good or bad.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It speaks volumes...about what? That most critics agree on good and bad, but good and bad is still their opinion, because it's ALWAYS opinion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The consensus would still be opinion, so neither of us would be right or wrong.Many people agreeing that Lily Allen has a great album does not mean she makes factually good music. It means many people agree that they think it's good music.
Opinion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Consensus means mass opinion, not mass fact. All it says is "Lots agree.", nothing more.
And what’s funny is that after each of these posts, I would tell him something like…
Originally posted by EPIIIBITESor
I myself have admitted that YES, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT FACT.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES…and he would keep focusing on the same stuff.
It's still worth giving a second look because what those OPINIONS point to is often overwhelmingly consensual.
So again, I’m not looking at what the consensus of informed opinions proves (regarding certain music being crap)…I’m looking at the event of this frequent consensus itself, and what that ALONE is saying…(or is SUGGESTING, NOT PROVING about a possible truth in reality).
Do you get that?…because AC sure didn’t.
The consensus opinion DOESN'T prove certain music is crap, you foolish idiot. It PROVES that certain musical critics have a shared opinion, not that this opinion is true, or proves anything objective.
Keep shouting "CONSENSUS!" all you want. It adds nothing. You are asking us to note that loads of people agree, so? Loads disagree. There being more of one doesn't make it true, and nothing suggests their opinions are more credible besides you saying it, and you only do THAT because they agree with you that she's good.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'm looking at simply the event of the frequent consensus that exists and what that says (which I think speaks volumes).
You want everyone to note there is a consensus, ok, then what? You say "It means something!".
It doesn't mean anything more than what it's been proven to mean; Mass agreement. This means...lots agree. It doesn't mean ANYTHING MORE. You need to understand that. Numbers don't mean truth, they mean agreement, in this case, and agreement won't win your debate. A debate you lost on page one of this thread and your other one.
Furthermore, it's such a sad, desperate point that has zero to do with this debate.
Don't give us the "Wah wah, I'm leaving." bs. You know you won't, despite being destroyed.
-AC
AC, I know what you're trying to do.
You're trying to frustrate me so that I might start cursing you, or even maybe other poeple on this thread to make me look like a bad guy or something...but that's not about to happen. People simply disagree with me...but with you it seems personal.
I've said my piece...patiently going into lots of detail...over and over...and some people have responded well in discussion.
But I am actually busy tomorrow. Too bad if that bugs you.
We know you like to frustrate, as well as needle people with curses...but you're not gonna get what you want out of me.
Sorry.
And as for your last post..
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You want everyone to note there is a consensus, ok, then what? You say "It means something!".It doesn't mean anything more than what it's been proven to mean; Mass agreement.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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).
I say it's because there "truly" is crappy music out there...and it's recognized (although I couldn't find facts to back all this up). If you don't agree that there is truly crappy music out there, then I guess we're done.
g'nite
AGAIN with the triple panic "I've lost." posts. You couldn't fit that in one post?
As for your first post, who are you talking to? "AC..."?
Genuinely the biggest idiot.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Nope. It means a lot more than that...'cause you have to look at the reasons for this mass agreement (which is what's key) from the people with informed opinions...and it's explained here...
The reasons ARE the mass opinions, they just happen to share an opinion.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
THAT says a lot...how these people's impressions of something they've listened to get re-affirmed time and again by others with informed opinions who'll have the same impressions of that music...and usually this happens with crap music. How does that happen?
No, that's entirely off-base and point.
A) As said above, they just happen to share an opinion. No more or less.
B) There are certain artists people feel they HAVE to mention because they have a reputation, fame etc. It has NOTHING...I repeat...NOTHING to do with how good people individually think their music is.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I say it's because there "truly" is crappy music out there...and it's recognized (although I couldn't find facts to back all this up). If you don't agree that there is truly crappy music out there, then I guess we're done.
It doesn't matter if people recognise what you're saying. Everyone has proven you wrong.
See you tomorrow.
-AC
WHAT?
I apologized for BEHAVIOUR that went way too far, I didn't apologize for my VIEWS.
I think my VIEWS are right...and I've patiently demonstrated how by further elaborating on them.
Why in the world would I feel the need to apologize about something that simply bothers some people just because they totally don't get it...(since it sends their established notions about the value of simply an opinion crumbling down).
I'll ALWAYS argue my point because I think it's useful, opens people's minds, and makes them more honest about themselves...I'd never argue something like this so adamantly if it wasn't for that.
...and if you have the impression that this discussion is in any way out of hand...well...the simple answer is becasue AC is involved.
As for what you missed...this furthers my argument...
Just read it and try to convince yourslef I'm not right...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You want everyone to note there is a consensus, ok, then what? You say "It means something!".It doesn't mean anything more than what it's been proven to mean; Mass agreement.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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 MORE OR LESS the same stuff being good music (and the same stuff being crap).
I say it's because there "truly" is crappy music out there...and it's recognized (although as I've said, I couldn't find facts to back all this up). If you don't agree that there is truly crappy music out there, then I guess we're done.
EDIT: Why in the WORLD would I apologoize for that?
And because I KNOW that the next comment is…”well it still doesn’t show anything as fact, therefore not a truth”… I just HAVE TO point to this stuff that I mentioned before...
Again, read it, and try to convince yourself I’m wrong…
Originally posted by Eis
You do understand that even if the general consensus is that Lily Allen's music is good it doesn't make it a truth, right?
And I NEVER said that this consensus of informed opinion MAKES it a truth...I said it POINTS TO or DEMONSTRATES what I think is the case about certain music actually being truly crap. It SUGGESTS what I think is a truth that exists.
Originally posted by Eis
You keep pretending there's a difference between fact and truth, there is not, fact.Before you start scrolling up to quote your previous posts as an answer to this one, explain what the difference between universal truths and facts is.
1st
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 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 exist 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.
Now if anyone wants to continue the conversation, I will only do so if you admit to having read these last two posts.
And sorry for posting these last posts one after the other, but I felt it was absolutely necessary to get the complete argument in one space...and it's because people have proven TIME and AGAIN to me that they miss the key points...
...so say you've read it, and then we can continue. Otherewise, there's no point.
Ahahahahaha.
"I'm done, I feel ill." *Three massive posts of panic*. You'll never be done here, you don't want to leave, you can't, and you won't admit you're wrong, so just stick around. Don't say "Leaving." then don't.
Furthermore, if you want to continue this debate, stop copy and pasting things we've already refuted and debunked. You have NOTHING left to say that hasn't been proven wrong, so to keep yourself in this thread, you post stuff, anything.
You can't leave, you won't leave, so don't act like you will. You're wrong, and if you want to stay and continue getting whooped, please do, but at least stop copy and pasting as if to suggest we haven't read your posts. We deal with everything you say, YOU are the one who keeps skipping things.
As an aside, be a little courteous and stop posting three or four times in a row. Nobody else has to do that, so neither do you.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Nope. It means a lot more than that...'cause you have to look at the reasons for this mass agreement (which is what's key) from the people with informed opinions...and it's explained here...
No, it just means what it is. Mass agreement, reason being? They like or agree on, the same things. It does not make it fact, at all.
It's INFORMED OPINION, not fact. You say "I KNOW!", well then. If you know, why keep saying "It must mean something more!"? It doesn't. It just means they agree, consensus of opinion. It means lots of people agree that THEY THINK she's good, not that she's factually good, or objectively good. Lots of people disagree too, not everyone is a fan, so that proves my point.
What do you think? Anyone who likes her, and agrees with you, is an informed opinion, where as anybody who disagrees and proves you wrong, is an uninformed one?
Exactly, you're an idiot.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
To be more precise, I said Lily Allen's music is not crap...and that there is a wide consensus of informed opinions (which, btw, say more than uninformed opinions, although not proving anything) on that.And I NEVER said that this consensus of informed opinion MAKES it a truth...I said it POINTS TO or DEMONSTRATES what I think is the case about certain music actually being truly crap. It SUGGESTS what I think is a truth that exists.
Dumbest fool ever.
It doesn't point to that, it points to the fact that loads of people agree. YOU are the one suggesting this means something that it doesn't, the consensus isn't suggesting that, you are. The consensus suggests lots of people agree on an opinion, a subjective belief, nothing objective. YOU are the one saying "It means that there's proof that what I think might be right.", and that's not true.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
THAT says a lot...how these people's impressions of something they've listened to get re-affirmed time and again by others with informed opinions who'll have more or less the same impressions of that music...and what's of note is that this happens the most with music that is considered crap. Now why is that?
Because lots of people share a subjective belief, that's why. Why do they share it? There could be many reasons. They might all like it, they might think they have to say it etc. Nothing suggests it's objective, because it's not.
The reason The Beatles, Led Zep, Bob Dylan etc continue to come up in polls or whatever (Which are also mass opinion.) proves something, like you said. You know what it proves? That they are revered and namedropped (Deservedly or not.). It factually and objectively proves that they are respected or thought of, that's all. It doesn't prove anything about their music that is objective, it proves something about their name, not their music.
Get it right.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I say it's because there "truly" is crappy music out there...and it's recognized (although as I've said, I couldn't find facts to back all this up). If you don't agree that there is truly crappy music out there, then I guess we're done.
It doesn't matter what you say it's because of, because that's not how it works. You're assuming it suggests something that it does not. Or if it does, it does only to you, because you're an idiot.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Now if anyone wants to continue the conversation, I will only do so if you admit to having read these last two posts.And sorry for posting these last posts one after the other, but I felt it was absolutely necessary to get the complete argument in one space...and it's because people have proven TIME and AGAIN to me that they miss the key points...
Will you stop doing that? Stop telling us we miss the point or don't read posts just because we keep proving you wrong. It's sheer ignorance.
That's all you do to keep yourself in this thread. You keep ignoring EVERYTHING, just so you can say "You don't get it, here's the post again.". Even if we address every part of it. Continuing to post here doesn't mean you're still in the debate. You've been reduced to nothing but spamming.
-AC
Okay, read the posts. You think the truths you talk about are "unprovable truths". That's where your whole delusion is based. Now if they were truths, they would be provable.
It is not rational for someone to believe they are truths that aren't provable, because if they aren't then how did you come to believe in them? An epiphany? It makes no sense. Arguing all the rest if quite futile because it is here where your problem lies.
Originally posted by Eis
Okay, read the posts. You think the truths you talk about are "unprovable truths". That's where your whole delusion is based.
And yes, that is where my discussion is based...but since none of us can REALLY prove the truth about ANYTHING apart from statements like "AC is a male", then we have to go off of what we got.
Well, I've got what I've shown about the common occurences of consensus by informed opinions when it comes to identifying music that is frequently labelled "bad". That DOES say a lot. And I HOPE others read my post where I demonstrated EXACTLY why that says a lot (in regards to these people's initial impressions somehow being re-affirmed by their peers, time and again)
WHAT does anyones else got to put forth as an argument to the contrary in the face of that?
HOW can you deny what the stuff I'm putting forward siggests what it does about something we can't really prove to know the answer to.
THAT'S what I want to know.
(And a dictionary definition of the word "truth" just doesn't really cut it I'm sorry to say...if you're open minded enough to realize this and not simply claim to KNOW anything because of what modern science might be telling you in the year 2007, then "hoorah!", we've made some progress).
You do not REALLY know the truth about "truth".
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri😂
That's what I'm going to call you, now; Panic Boy.
PS. I re-posted mostly for Ya Krunk'd Floo's benefit.
And I said I was sorry for doing so, but maintained it was necessary to get the whole idea together..because it's a complex idea, and becasue I've come to predict what the responses would be to certain points...so I explained myself in advance.
Gimme a break.