Objectivity in Music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

What we have: Facts, evidence, reasonable suggestions, truth.

What you have: "I think...".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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)

Yes, but what you don't understand is what the consensus ACTUALLY means. So I'll explain it to you for the millionth time:

It says A LOT...about what? Nothing YOU believe. It doesn't say a lot about music being objectively good or bad, which is what you're trying to prove. IF you were trying to prove that lots of critics have an agreeing opinion on what is CONSIDERED to be bad (Subjective), i.e: Britney Spears considered bad, then you would have a point. Since a lot of critics do share that opinion.

However, you are trying to prove that this suggests there is truth to your belief of an objective standard, and it doesn't. You are assuming it does because that's what you'd like it to mean, that isn't what it means.

It's actually got to the point with you that you were suggesting science might be wrong. It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
WHAT does anyones else got to put forth as an argument to the contrary in the face of that?

You ask this and then have the nerve to say we ignore things or miss points? I've given you conclusive and factual proof as to what's contrary to that, I'll paste it again:

"It says A LOT...about what? Nothing YOU believe. It doesn't say a lot about music being objectively good or bad, which is what you're trying to prove. IF you were trying to prove that lots of critics have an agreeing opinion on what is CONSIDERED to be bad (Subjective), i.e: Britney Spears considered bad, then you would have a point. Since a lot of critics do share that opinion.

However, you are trying to prove that this suggests there is truth to your belief of an objective standard, and it doesn't. You are assuming it does because that's what you'd like it to mean, that isn't what it means.".

There.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

It doesn't suggest what you WANT it to suggest, and that is factual, as proven when you break down what a consensus actually means, why it might happen in this scenario and the possibilities of it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
(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).

So now the dictionary and science are possibly wrong because they prove you incorrect? This is exactly what I mean with you. ANYTHING contrary to your belief, you just shut your eyes and plug your ears.

It's unbelievable. Science and dictionaries and proof are to be questioned simply because "They don't coincide with what I believe!". You don't have the right to question truth, fact, objectivity. The truth, fact and objectivity of this debate is, and always will be; No objective standard in music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You do not REALLY know the truth about "truth".

So it's come to this bs. Look:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
😂

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.

It's not a complex idea, it's a stupid one. There's a difference. It's not "out there", it's not some hard-to-grasp idea that we're not getting. It's you being stupid because you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong, because you think "Oh no, they'd know I think I'm wrong!". It doesn't matter, you're factually wrong anyway, why not admit it? Why continue this endless tirade of "You don't get it." and "It's too complex.".

It's not. It's "complex" to you so you feel smart. We get what you're saying, it's just wrong, and we prove that.

-AC

Originally posted by Eis
Why?

If year after year, the different judging panels at the Cannes Film Festival come to an agreement on pointing to the yearly duds named for the festival (which they do), then something that you have that you can go off of here is: the movies which are widely panned can be considered films that really don't measure up to being a truly good movie.

That's be the SMART thing to do.

What I think ISN'T smart is saying..."well, it's just opinion...so what if a lot of proven professionals in the industry say it's bad...I like it".

Gimme a break.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Because we got nothing else.

YOU have nothing. We have everything proving you wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
If year after year, the different judging panels at the Cannes Film Festival come to an agreement on recognizing the yearly duds of the festival (which they do), then something that you have that you can go off of here is: the movies which are widely panned can be considered films that really don't measure up to being a truly good movie.

That's be the SMART thing to do.

Precisely. Considered, not objective. Considered by a group of people who agree to not liking it, it doesn't mean it is factually bad just because they were chosen to be on a panel. They're still just movie watchers.

Profession does not make your opinion factual or truthful. It's still opinion. Reviews are opinions. You're not arguing for the existence of more credible opinions than others, which DO exist, you're arguing that those opinions mean something they do not. You are arguing that mass "informed" opinion means there's an objective standard, and it doesn't. Besides, YOU don't get to decide what informed opinions are.

There might be people in the audience who have seen more movies and studied more movies than the critics, but have no interest in being critics, they may also hold an opposing opinion. It's still an informed opinion.

Informed opinion is just having a lot of knowledge on a subject. I have a lot of knowledge on music, you not liking me or what I say does not change the fact that my opinion on music in general, is an informed one.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What I think ISN'T smart is saying..."well, it's just opinion...so what if a lot of proven professionals in the industry say it's bad...I like it".

So what? It doesn't matter what YOU think is smart. Nobody here thinks your belief is smart, especially since it's held in the fact of defeat, but you do it anyway.

The fact is; it IS just opinion, and just because a load of chosen critics say it's bad, doesn't make it a bad film. It means they didn't like it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Gimme a break.

Leave then. If you're tired of this, tired of getting proven wrong, tired of the ongoing mass whooping, then leave.

You being here isn't making you right.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's you being stupid because you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong, because you think "Oh no, they'd know I think I'm wrong!".

...I just think I'm right.

Enough with the weak attempts at psycholgical warfare (a true sign of someone who's getting desperate in refuting an argument)

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...I just think I'm right.

Enough with the weak attempts at psycholgical warfare (a true sign of someone who's getting desperate in refuting an argument)

But you're not right, and that is precisely why I'm not desperate, because I've got nothing to try for. I'm not here trying to prove you wrong, I have, and you are.

You can keep posting in disagreement all you like, I am right, Eis is right, Morgoths is right. We have fact and truth (One and the same.) backing us up, to the point that what you THINK is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you think what you do, it's incorrect. It's not possibly correct just because you hold a belief.

As for desperation, you are the desperate one, that's why you're here pasting and saying "I think...", "You don't get it." etc.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The fact is; it IS just opinion, and just because a load of chosen critics say it's bad, doesn't make it a bad film. It means they didn't like it.

This conversation can't go anywhere until people agree that AC clearly isn't getting it...(becasue he's confusing others along the way). I don't think Eis and Morgoths would agree that you're getting it either.

What AC just claimed to be my argument proves he isn't getting it.

I want to hear someone explain why... and then explain EXACTLY what my argument is.

Because if people can't see how AC is missing the point of what my argument is, then it shows me that others might not understand it as well..

So go ahead (and lets see if AC can try and stay out of this)

EDIT:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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?

Oh my

Must I really explain this...

Well, I guess I have to...

-No AC, as I've said before, people with informed opinions don't always agree on everything...however when it comes to ceratin music being considered crap, they very often largely agree with each other...that's why I've said it's USUALLY the case that there is a consensus, not always.

So to be more clear, someone with a truly informed, professional, trusted opinion might possibly give a thumbs up to music that ends up being considered crap by a peer majority...but far more often than that, that person will usually end up giving a thumbs down to music that ends up being considered crap by a peer majority.

Nobody agrees all the time, that's silly.

Stop cutting shit out of my posts.

Quote and reply to the whole thing, because that is why you're not getting it. Here:

"Precisely. Considered, not objective. Considered by a group of people who agree to not liking it, it doesn't mean it is factually bad just because they were chosen to be on a panel. They're still just movie watchers.

Profession does not make your opinion factual or truthful. It's still opinion. Reviews are opinions. You're not arguing for the existence of more credible opinions than others, which DO exist, you're arguing that those opinions mean something they do not. You are arguing that mass "informed" opinion means there's an objective standard, and it doesn't. Besides, YOU don't get to decide what informed opinions are.

There might be people in the audience who have seen more movies and studied more movies than the critics, but have no interest in being critics, they may also hold an opposing opinion. It's still an informed opinion.

Informed opinion is just having a lot of knowledge on a subject. I have a lot of knowledge on music, you not liking me or what I say does not change the fact that my opinion on music in general, is an informed one.".

Scared? Or will you reply?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
This conversation can't go anywhere until people agree that AC clearly isn't getting it...(becasue he's confusing others along the way). I don't think Eis and Morgoths would agree that you're getting it either.

Why are you assuming I am the one causing people to disagree with you? People disagree because you are wrong. Also, stop talking to some other imaginary person, address me or don't address me.

Eis and Morgoths agree with me, they too know you are wrong. Don't hold a ridiculous belief with no proof, and in contrary to being proven wrong, then suggest we lack the intelligence because you don't like it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What AC just claimed to be my argument proves he isn't getting it.

You quoted two lines because you're scared to reply to the rest, and yes, that's EXACTLY why you won't reply to it all.

Do me a favour, stop saying we block things out and ignore them, when you are doing the same. Will you at least do that?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I want to hear someone explain why... and then explain EXACTLY what my argument is.

Why? YOU have explained what your argument is, WE have proven it wrong, YOU then ignore that and reply to a part with a view to continuing this.

The burden of proving anything is on you, Panic Boy.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Because if people can't see how AC is missing the point of what my argument is, then it shows me that others might not understand it as well..

Genuinely beyond all saving, you are.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So go ahead (and lets see if AC can try and stay out of this)

You quoted me, so why should I stay out of it? Oh, because I am devestating to your debate. It's a public forum.

What are you going to do when Eis and Morgoths keep proving you wrong? Tell them to stay out of it? Tell anyone who disagrees and proves you wrong to stay out of it?

Deal with it, man. For your own sake, and for your own sake, stop replying with essays to one or two lines in a whole post. Either do what we do and reply properly, or don't reply at all.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So go ahead (and lets see if AC can try and stay out of this)

I'd have to assume he's worried people think he hasn't gotten my argument.

BTW, I edited my previous post AC...read it.

So, as I said...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
This conversation can't go anywhere until people agree that AC clearly isn't getting it...(becasue he's confusing others along the way). I don't think Eis and Morgoths would agree that you're getting it either.

What AC just claimed to be my argument proves he isn't getting it.

I want to hear someone explain why... and then explain EXACTLY what my argument is.

Because if people can't see how AC is missing the point of what my argument is, then it shows me that others might not understand it as well..

OH WAIT! He's just given more proof he doesn't my argument...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Profession does not make your opinion factual or truthful. It's still opinion. Reviews are opinions.

How about we wait 'till someone else answers then AC...

How about you reply to this:

"Precisely. Considered, not objective. Considered by a group of people who agree to not liking it, it doesn't mean it is factually bad just because they were chosen to be on a panel. They're still just movie watchers.

Profession does not make your opinion factual or truthful. It's still opinion. Reviews are opinions. You're not arguing for the existence of more credible opinions than others, which DO exist, you're arguing that those opinions mean something they do not. You are arguing that mass "informed" opinion means there's an objective standard, and it doesn't. Besides, YOU don't get to decide what informed opinions are.

There might be people in the audience who have seen more movies and studied more movies than the critics, but have no interest in being critics, they may also hold an opposing opinion. It's still an informed opinion.

Informed opinion is just having a lot of knowledge on a subject. I have a lot of knowledge on music, you not liking me or what I say does not change the fact that my opinion on music in general, is an informed one.".

Furthermore;

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So to be more clear, someone with a truly informed, professional, trusted opinion might possibly give a thumbs up to music that ends up being considered crap by a peer majority...but far more often than that, that person will usually end up giving a thumbs down to music that ends up being considered crap by a peer majority.

Nobody agrees all the time, that's silly.

Professional? Why? Professional means nothing in this case.

People have called me into their house to fix their computers before, and I have done so, but it's not what I do for a living, yet...there are people who do it for a living. My dad is very good with all things D.I.Y, and has done things for people as good as anybody who does it for a profession, but it's not what HE does for a living.

If you had a broken lock on your door, and my Dad offered to fix it for you, and you knew he could do it as well as anyone in the locksmith business, despite not being in it himself, would you accept that? Or would you pay money for someone just because they're employed? Bearing in mind, you'd get the exact same results either way.

Just like having an informed opinion on music does not require you to be employed, in any way, to do with music. Nor does being employed in the area afford you a greater opinion than someone who isn't, especially on the area of what music is good or bad, because as proven, and as ignored by you, it's subjective.

"Considered crap by a peer majority."? Doesn't matter. Let it be considered crap, that doesn't mean it is crap, it means it's considered crap.

So here's the deal, you reply to everything, EVERYTHING I have said in this post, and I will butt out until someone else replies.

If you cannot do this, then I won't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So here's the deal, you reply to everything, EVERYTHING I have said in this post, and I will butt out until someone else replies.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Considered crap by a peer majority."? Doesn't matter. Let it be considered crap, that doesn't mean it is crap, it means it's considered crap.

But you don’t get that, because you always point to why "it doesn’t mean it’s fact."

I think other people are realizing you don’t get that this isn't my argument, so I wanna hear what they have to say when you’re STILL saying stuff like…

"Profession does not make your opinion factual or truthful. It's still opinion. Reviews are opinions."

So just let them answer if you're so sure you understand my precise argument...and if you're confident others think you do as well.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Why do you think people have to reply to everything? Hardly anyone does that. We reply to points we consider need replying to in order to further the conversation.

No, YOU reply to the points you feel you can reply to in order to keep you in this thread. I posted an entirely relevant post and you skipped it because you didn't like it. Besides, there's plenty you could have replied to in order to further the conversation, but instead you chose to whine about "Why do I have to?". So I will post it again, until you reply or admit you don't want to:

"Precisely. Considered, not objective. Considered by a group of people who agree to not liking it, it doesn't mean it is factually bad just because they were chosen to be on a panel. They're still just movie watchers.

Profession does not make your opinion factual or truthful. It's still opinion. Reviews are opinions. You're not arguing for the existence of more credible opinions than others, which DO exist, you're arguing that those opinions mean something they do not. You are arguing that mass "informed" opinion means there's an objective standard, and it doesn't. Besides, YOU don't get to decide what informed opinions are.

There might be people in the audience who have seen more movies and studied more movies than the critics, but have no interest in being critics, they may also hold an opposing opinion. It's still an informed opinion.

Informed opinion is just having a lot of knowledge on a subject. I have a lot of knowledge on music, you not liking me or what I say does not change the fact that my opinion on music in general, is an informed one.".

Reply to that, please. I'm asking nicely. Then there's this part that you conveniently skipped, out of fear:

"Professional? Why? Professional means nothing in this case.

People have called me into their house to fix their computers before, and I have done so, but it's not what I do for a living, yet...there are people who do it for a living. My dad is very good with all things D.I.Y, and has done things for people as good as anybody who does it for a profession, but it's not what HE does for a living.

If you had a broken lock on your door, and my Dad offered to fix it for you, and you knew he could do it as well as anyone in the locksmith business, despite not being in it himself, would you accept that? Or would you pay money for someone just because they're employed? Bearing in mind, you'd get the exact same results either way.

Just like having an informed opinion on music does not require you to be employed, in any way, to do with music. Nor does being employed in the area afford you a greater opinion than someone who isn't, especially on the area of what music is good or bad, because as proven, and as ignored by you, it's subjective.".

Reply to both please.

Even if you don't quote them, reply to what I said above, in both parts, or admit you're afraid. If you're not afraid, and have no fear of being proven wrong, there's no reason you can't reply.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The sheer fact that it is considered crap (and the reasons behind this phenomenon which you also don’t seem to understand) is my argument.

Yes, I do get it, you idiot.

Your argument: It is considered crap.

Right, what do you wish to achieve with that belief? Your original argument was one that there's an objective standard in music, and there isn't, as we've all proven. Now you're saying "Yeah, but some things are considered crap by mass opinion.". Ok, so what? It doesn't ADD anything to your argument, it just proves what I have been saying all along, and in the two quotes I pasted.

Nothing about a consensus agreement proves objectivity in music, nor does it suggest it, which you want it to. So unless you're now trying to make an ENTIRELY different argument, it's not relevant. In fact, it's still not relevant.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But you don’t get that, because you always point to why it doesn’t mean it’s fact.

Ok, as I said above. You agree it doesn't mean fact, right? Fine. So then why bring it up? Why bring up mass consensus regarding music being considered good or bad? If we both know it's NOTHING more than mass opinion, and does not bring you any closer to proving an objective standard, why do you continue to bring it up?

This whole debate was about YOU proposing an objective standard in music either for better or worse, so then why do you keep telling us that lots of people agree on things? It doesn't matter, it doesn't bring your original point (Of there being an objective standard.) any further.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think other people are realizing you don’t get that, so I wanna hear what they have to say when you’re STILL saying stuff like…

So just let them answer if you're so sure you understand my precise argument, and if you're confident others think you do.

I'm not stopping anyone from answering by posting here. You are being disrespectful as to assume they say what they do because of me, and that's because you won't accept others freely believe as they do.

I wonder how much of THIS you will skip.

Let me predict a reply:

"AC (Speaking to someone again.) doesn't get it cos he says this: *Insert a chopped and cropped, out of context quote pulled from a huge reply you were too chicken to deal with.*.".

-AC

-AC

Sorry I don't really have time right now to debate here with everyone at length, but I thought I should step in and say something since there is some assumption as to who I would side with.

If you had read my posts, EPIII, you would know that I don't agree with you. I disagree with you not because AC has corrupted my thoughts through some kind of psychological warfare, I disagree with you (as others have said) because you're simply wrong.

Let me break some of this down.

Eis says:

"You think the truths you talk about are "improvable truths". That's where your whole delusion is based. Now if they were truths, they would be provable."

He is right, because truths lie in the realm of objectivity. ALL truths lie in the realm of objectivity, despite what you might say. It seems that you are suggesting that there is some sort of realm that is neither objective nor subjective, and this simply isn’t possible. Don’t accuse us of not being open-minded, either. I don't think you even have a real good idea about what you’re trying to argue yourself. Either that, or you are just terribly unable to articulate your "theories" to us. In either case, it’s not our fault.

Now lets break down some of your points:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

You’re getting confused here. See, if something is OBJECTIVE (something like, oh….let’s say, truth), then it is provable. It is fact. By saying a truth is improvable, you are essentially suggesting that this truth is not certain or valid, and why should anyone believe that? If it’s not provable, it’s not a truth. To suggest the opposite is utterly contradictory.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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)

Saying that it says “a lot” isn’t enough. You need to elaborate. You need to think it through, hard. And please, PLEASE, above all else, you need to make sense. You can’t expect people to automatically relate to what you’re saying, and expect them to know exactly what you’re talking about because you’re really not telling us very much at all. We can’t read your mind. You have to present a real argument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

Now you know.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
(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".

Now you’re being silly again. What makes you think you have a right to question the dictionary’s meaning of a word? The dictionary defines words so that everyone knows what a word means when it is used in communication. If you don’t know what a word means, I highly suggest you don’t use it.

And I don’t suggest you trust modern science above all else. BUT if you’re going to oppose it you’d better know what you’re talking about and you DAMN WELL better know how to explain your position to others if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
This conversation can't go anywhere until people agree that AC clearly isn't getting it...(becasue he's confusing others along the way). I don't think Eis and Morgoths would agree that you're getting it either.

Quite the contrary, this conversation isn’t going anywhere because you don’t understand that YOU’RE not getting it. And you say we’re not getting it…GET WHAT? Your arguments don’t make any sense. I think you're approaching this all wrong. You can't really expect any of us to simply "get" what you're saying; you have to explain to us your postition in a way that is intelligible. Until you prove to us that you know what you’re talking about by EXPLAINING your position THOROUGHLY, we have every right to say that we are right and you are wrong. We have facts on our side (which you say don't really matter, but the do. A lot.), so until you present proof our facts are wrong then we are going to have the most convincing (and indeed, have the winning) argument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I want to hear someone explain .... EXACTLY what my argument is.

That’s YOUR JOB, man! Why must you have someone else explain your view? Are you too dim to do it yourself? How the hell is ANYONE supposed to know what you’re talking about anyway? You’re not making any sense.

That’s all I have time for right now. I’ll be back sometime tomorrow! Hope that cleared some things up (probably not to some, but carry on).

Do yourself (and everyone else) a favor, EPIII.

Why don't you, in ONE POST, formulate a coherent argument. Be sure to include every aspect of your theory. Explain your ideas thoroughly, and show us how you can to your conclusion. Think about it hard. Make it detailed. Make it reasonable.

First of all, thanks for being patient, non-judgmental, productive and respectful in your post...(unlike some others here).

Second of all, upon your request, I will in one post explain my argument again, and try and be as thorough as possible (although I think I've already done that). I will be quoting myself, but I'll be elaborating as well.

But for now, I just wanna say a couple things here...

The real difference of opinion here is what truth really means, and if it is indeed something that needs to be proven to be considered what it is...a truth.

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.

So, I'm saying you DON'T have facts, you DON'T have proof, you DON'T REALLY have anything.

Well, what I have is what I put forward already...about the "coincidental" phenomenon where there are people with informed opinions who are often agreeing on what is crap. THAT'S what I have.

Again, (and this is meant especially for AC), I know that doesn't make anything a fact...(and therefore according to YOU, not a truth)...but it's a heck of a better indication than what you've got that there might actually BE a truth (and what that truth is) regarding the musical quality of something that is considered crap.

You wanna go up to the panel at Cannes and claim Catwoman can't actually be a bad movie simply because you or others might like it? (And that IS essentially your argument) Then be my guest.

You wanna write a letter to the major music magazines and state that Kevin Federline's album isn't actually a bad album simply because you or others might like it? Be my guest.

You know what A LARGE MAJORITY of these people will MOST LIKELY say to you? They'll say:

"I think this sucks...most others I trust with informed opinions who have agreed with the majority of things sucking in the past ALSO think this sucks...and this is all a very good indication that what we have here is a truly bad example of a good film/album. Now, if you think the majority of us are wrong about Catwoman/Kevin Federline, let's hear how you can prove otherwise."

And that's what I'm saying to you.

My argument in it's entirety is to come...I'm not gonna be replying to posts regarding this last piece. Just wait for my argument.

To come? So it wasn't one post, was it? Do you lack the capability to post just once? Also, how dare you suggest anyone here is being ignorant and non-productive when you could write a novel on the two? What a hypocrite.

Anyway, might as well deal with this first.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The real difference of opinion here is what truth really means, and if it is indeed something that needs to be proven to be considered what it is...a truth.

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.

Exactly. You are ignoring what does exist, what's factually proven and what objectively exists, in favour of a faith based belief that however much we discredit it, and however much you cannot back it up (Which you can't.), you still hold onto.

This debate exists, quite literally, because you do not have a debate.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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).

The creator? WHAT CREATOR? This magical creator that you subjectively believe in? You are using a subjective belief as way of believing an objective truth, which you then admit cannot be proven? Do you have any idea how much sense that truly lacks?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

But you also cannot prove it, cannot back that belief up, cannot give any proof as to why it is an objective truth (Which would be required for it to be such a thing in the first place.), and then go so far as to say it's because you believe a higher power, a creator, had the ability to set a standard?

This means you are using a subjective belief as means to say an objective truth exists. You do realise there's no factual creator, right? That a belief in a higher power is ALSO subjective? So in that case, one would have to believe in God or a higher power to even consider your argument. I'm no athiest, I'm agnostic, but now, hopefully you see why there is no objective standard.

Meanwhile, on Earth, and in the real world...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

No, it means you're pretty much an idiot for thinking you are right purely because you choose first to believe in a higher power (And yes, it IS a choice.), then to say it sets the standard.

Most baseless argument ever.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So, I'm saying you DON'T have facts, you DON'T have proof, you DON'T REALLY have anything.

Excuse me? This coming from Mr. "God gets to decide."?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What I have is what I put forward already...about the "coincidental" phenomenon where there are people with informed opinions who are often agreeing on what is crap. THAT'S what I have.

Yes, what you have is a belief in a higher power that leads you to belief that IT decides, without even thinking "Hmm, it's ALSO subjective that a deity exists.".

And no need to say "coincidental". It is a factual coincidence, that's all it is. You are then using the argument of there being a consensus, and that it HAS to mean something, but then you say you know it doesn't make it a fact. So essentially, you're talking out of your arse crack.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again, (and this is meant for AC), I know that doesn't make anything a fact...(therefore according to YOU, not a truth).

No, according to any human with sense, a dictionary and science; not truth. It's not up for debate just because you disagree, this is what you need to realise, EP.

If having a mass opinion doesn't make it fact, it doesn't make it true, it makes it a simple agreement between many. Just like many agree oppositely to the mainstream also. It's ALL SUBJECTIVE.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You wanna go up to the panel at Cannes and claim Catwoman can't actually be a bad movie simply because you or others might like it? (And that IS essentially your argument) Then be my guest.

I don't like Catwoman, but that doesn't make it a shit film, it means I dislike it, many dislike it, and we all agree that we dislike it. That is all it means, that really is.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You wanna write a letter to the major music magazines and state that Kevin Federline's album isn't actually a bad album simply because you or others might like it? Be my guest.

Again, I dislike Kevin Federline, many dislike him, many like him. Neither of us are right or wrong in our opinions of his music.

Like I said, people in the NME, world famous music mag, have said Lil Chris is brilliant. This is the same magazine that also love Lily Allen, and the same writers. So whatcha gonna do? It's called opinion. Being picked or being employed means nothing, as my previous post proved.

My dad isn't employed by an interior decorating or repair company, but he has done jobs of professional quality. The only difference is, he isn't in the profession, so he's not a PROFESSIONal. It means nothing.

You know why? You GET music knowledge first, THEN you get the job after. Having a job doesn't give you the knowledge, you get the job because you have the knowledge, so to assume those of us who aren't employed by a mag or a film association have less credible and less informed opinions, THAT is stupid.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You know what A LARGE MAJORITY of these people will MOST LIKELY say to you? They'll say:

"I think this sucks...most others I trust with informed opinions who have agreed with the majority of things sucking in the past ALSO think this sucks...and this is all a very good indication that what we have here is a truly bad example of a good film/album. Now, if you think the majority of us are wrong about Catwoman/Kevin Federline, let's hear how you can prove otherwise."

And that's what I'm saying to you.

That's where you're wrong, because they haven't PROVEN it's a bad movie/album, and I'm not out to prove it's a good movie/album. Why? Because NEITHER of us can. They cannot prove it to the point of undeniability, so it's no fact, it's no truth.

I can turn around and say "Prove those things are bad.", and the fact is, they couldn't.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
My argument in it's entirety is to come...

I await eagerly.

-AC

I'm not wasting my time reading what I said I wouldn't respond to.

Bring those points up later if you wish...AFTER I have posted my argument (and you've been given a more full explanation of what I'm talking about to work with...a full explanation that wasn't given above).

Good job waisting your time. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Man, you're difficult...(and as just displayed...quite unproductive)

I'll repost it later, and you will dodge it again later, because you dodge me all the time, due to fear of my posts.

Not true? Then try replying to them.

Unproductive? Are you even serious? I post a reply to each and every single part of your post, refuting it all AGAIN, and somehow I'm the unproductive one? When was the last time you have ANYBODY'S post the specific replies they deserve? Never.

-AC

What does the consensus opposing your argument point to, Epibites?

They call it something, in chess.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll repost it later, and you will dodge it again later, because you dodge me all the time, due to fear of my posts.

Not true? Then try replying to them.

AC. I'm not going to reply to something that was made in response to what I said isn't my full argument.

You just couldn't help yourself and went ahead trying to argue something you knew wasn't fully explained.

Good job! So very productive.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC. I'm not going to reply to something that was made in response to what I said isn't my full argument.

You just couldn't help yourself and went ahead trying to argue something you knew wasn't fully explained.

Good job! Very productive.

I didn't assume it to mean FULL anything. It was a post, by you, that I replied to and refuted everything in it. Myself and others will do the same when you post it fully.

Oh, did you see this Mr. Consensus?

"What does the consensus opposing your argument point to, Epibites?

They call it something, in chess.".

Did you see that?

-AC