Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well, did you (or others) ever stop to wonder WHY??? I’m explaining why!
Yes, because one is Jimi Hendrix, someone who is agreed by many to make better music, the other is Ashlee Simpson. That's why, you are explaining WHY you THINK, not why it's actually happening. It does not prove your point.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
…and I can see you had a problem with it because you people aren’t even saying a standard exists in the first place…so why would I be making an argument about it…right? I very much understand that, AND there were a COUPLE times where I said this very thing about how some you will say “who says there even IS a difference between a tyrant and a saint?” I did that, a couple times.
See what I mean? We prove you wrong and you say "You're having a problem with it because you're saying a standard doesn't exist.". It doesn't, it's not a matter of me having a problem, or anybody having a problem. It's a matter of you not accepting than an objective standard is non-existent.
You still think that by replying you're in the debate, you're not. You don't understand that you are undeniably wrong. NOTHING changes that, you replying does not alter that.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BUT, you gotta understand the process here. After I pointed out this counter-argument to mine that I just mentioned, I said that I will continue with my argument. And the reason I’m including that there might not be a difference between a tyrant(Hitler) and a saint(mother Theresa) ACCORDING to my argument, is to simply try and show the ridiculousness of that idea…the idea of there not being a difference between them….even if I KNOW you might disagree with the reasoning behind it. I’m trying to simply show an obviousness that I say there (Hitler being less “just” than Mother Theresa)…in hopes that you re-examine your very reasoning with this (while also having taken into account everything else I said that supported my reasoning…such as the whole “It doesn’t matter if Ashlee Simpson THINKS her music is good” stuff regarding things being relative). I used it ACCORDING to my argument to prove a bold point I think is worth making…and I can do that. Be clear on the method there.
I'm entirely clear on the method, EP. You refuse to accept this because I'm not agreeing. What you fail to see is once again, you are wrong.
You keep going on about Hitler, Mother Theresa, Plato, so what? The FACT is, Ashlee Simpson's music is not objectively better than Hendrix's music. I don't think he music's better, many don't, but that's opinion.
It's all relative. You aren't proving anything beyond "I believe this, this is why.", and faith isn't enough.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Careful. I said truthfully…NOT factually wrong …and I went to show why facts AREN’T necessary for something to be true, and that truth might exist apart from facts (like the God example, where it might be true God is real, regardless if there are no facts to show that). You seem to have said you understand this very simple and logical concept…then please apply it to what you’re suggesting I’m saying about things being “factually” right and wrong.
TRUTHFULLY = FACTUALLY. This is another thing you don't accept, and it's why you believe you're still in this debate, it's really stupid and pedantic, EP. FACT is this: Truth is fact. You refuse to admit this because you know it means loss, but I do not need you to admit it for you to lose, you've lost already.
You can't keep bringing up God, God's existence is subjective. You cannot prove that he does or doesn't exist, where as many others and I have proven that music is subjective in the sense being discussed.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Not quite. I’m saying there is an objective standard…even though I can’t prove there is…but the reasoning I have for my argument on my side, far outweighs the reasoning you have for your argument on the other side about something none of can even prove. And I think what I have on my side points to things that are so obvious, that if you had to decide on which side is true (since we can’t PROVE one is more true the other…which isn’t really necessary) than any reasonable person would side with what I have to support my side of the argument…because there really isn’t anything on the other side…all there is, is “if you can’t prove it…it’s not true”. That really IS all there is if you look at it.
But there isn't an objective standard. All your 9 pages were for nothing, because here we are, you saying I don't get it because you are oblivious to fact and too pig-headed to admit defeat, EP. That's all this is.
You cannot prove a thing, I can, I have. So have others, but you ignore us because you are simply ignorant.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No, that’s NOT what I said…AT ALL. I said a standard might simply just exist (which is what Plato says)…and whether it’s God or not doesn’t matter. But even more than that…I NEVER said the standard itself makes the call. Please go back and read it again. I said the standard itself is ONLY there to prove a difference that we claim HAS TO exist (by arguing Hitler is different than Mother Theresa…which is a very reasonable argument). But if we say there’s a difference there, we have to prove so…and THAT’S what a standard exists…it doesn’t say make a call about anything regarding WHY there is a difference between them. It simply acts to prove a difference.
A standard might? You are ASSUMING it does, you are telling us it does. You're not saying it might, you're saying it does, and you are wrong.
You are arguing lack of proof of a negative, and it doesn't work that way. There is a difference between artists, so what? THE MUSIC QUALITY does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT, have an objective standard.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I JUST showed in my “4 possibilities” section how what you said here is contradicting your very argument. You don’t think there is a “crap” and “non-crap” to being with…so you’re not really saying anything with what you said. All you EVER could be saying with your stance on the argument is “I like something”. THAT’S IT! If I ever hear you say “this sucks” or “this rules”, all it will ever mean to me is “I really, really hate this” or “I really, really like this”…because that’s ALL you’re saying by going with your argument. Be clear on that.
Nothing is contradicting my argument, you actually believe you have a chance of proving me and everyone wrong? You don't, EP. That's why this is entirely futile and fruitless, because for all your faith, you are factually and truthfully (They are the same.) incorrect.
My argument is true; Saying you like or dislike something is the only standard there is. PERSONAL standards, SUBJECTIVE ones, not objective ones.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But I think different…and I DO think I can say “Even though I like it…I think this sucks”...because that’s the way I think about music. And it’s got nothing to do with what I fear people will say about my judgment regarding music. I see music as crap and non-crap. And I said, I’m always open to the possibility that I might be a minority when a majority of people with informed opinions say certain music is crap…because that happens. But what tends to happen a lot more that I (and others with informed opinions) largely agree on stuff that is either widely panned, or widely praised…it just happens. Maybe it doesn’t happen for you, but it happens for me.
What you THINK does not matter, because it is based on many fallacies and ignoring fact, EP. You think that because you have the right to think it, you have an automatically credible debate, that is not the case.
You see it as crap and non-crap, that's your own peculiar, inane choice. Your own thought process does not indicate an objective standard, consensus does not indicate an objective standard. YOU are running on pure faith and ignorance of truth/fact. Largely agreeing means largely agreeing on an opinion, nothing more at ALL.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well, statements like that really don’t help your case…because there’s nothing to them. I’ve shown how you can’t PROVE I’m wrong…and you seem to have agreed. Other than that, all you’re left to do is say…”you’re just wrong…because you are”. I’ve explained why I’m right…all you and others have done is harp on what YOU say is the truth about “truth”…which I also argued isn’t nearly as simple as you suggest it is.
I have prove you are wrong, so has everyone here. Me, VVD, Morgoths, Eis, Kramer. What more do you want? You're just going to keep posting, keep ignoring and keep rehashing, because the bottom line is, you won't ever admit you are wrong, or worse, don't believe you are.
You've explained why you THINK you are right, and we have come up with endless analogies, proof and holes in your argument to show why you are factually, truthfully wrong. That's what's puzzling to me, you just keep on in the face of being incorrect.
All we can DO at this point is keep saying what we do, because we do not require your agreement, you are wrong. Whether you like it or not.
-AC