The "You Know What" Thread

"Feel free to start a new one if you guys wish"....DONE

---

How I won the argument with AC in 3 easy steps:

1) AC - “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

2) Me - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objetively good or crap.

He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.

So...I'll leave it at that. I know I'm right, there's no question about it, and there's no point discussing this any further with someone who isn't man enough to admit he's wrong even though I KNOW he knows it.

Note:

In regards to the As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread...

I never said I had "no interest in keeping this thread on topic" as moderator BackFire suggested. I was often willing to get on topic. But the discussion had shifted for the time being (as many do), and I (as well as others) were involved in talking about something that was related to the original discussion...which I had promised I'd get back (guess BackFire didn't see this).

However, AC being the pest that he is, and asking me the same question 15 times over when he's not even expecting to get an answer, was if anything prolonging this…not to mention providing the hostility in the thread (along with a couple other foul-mouthed patrons).

But…whatever.

Alright then

So...now, upon request, we can finally continue with the original discussion.

I started a new thread and everything...so what's your question AC? (now that I'm prepared to respond)

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How I won the argument with AC in 3 easy steps:

Wrong

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
1) AC - “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

Correct.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
2) Me - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

Incorrect. He says it is shit music to him. He says he does not like it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

You misportray the argument. That is not what he is saying. Do you really not understand it or are you a liar?

And there can be qualities that you define as good or bad in songs. That doesn't imply objectivity in music. That is also a fact.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

Wrong wording. It is crap to them, because they do not like it. Keep up the bad work, though.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

And he is right.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objetively good or crap.

Wrong conclusoon. AC does not thing that it is more than his subjective opinion. He stated so repeatedly. I trust his statements on his argument more than yours.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.

Because he isn't. You can not use logic well.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So...I'll leave it at that. I know I'm right, there's no question about it, and there's no point discussing this any further with someone who isn't man enough to admit he's wrong even though I KNOW he knows it.

Incorrect. You are wrong as I have just shown once more.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Note:

In regards to the As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread...

I never said I had "no interest in keeping this thread on topic" as moderator BackFire suggested. I was often willing to get on topic. But the discussion had shifted for the time being (as many do), and I (as well as others) were involved in talking about something that was related to the original discussion...which I had promised I'd get back (guess BackFire didn't see this).

Lie! You did not reply to repeated requests to argue on topic. You tried to push your illogical vendetta agains AC, despite everyone disagreeing with your conclusions. You brought it off-topic.

And though you promised to get back you did not for more than 5 pages.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
However, AC being the pest that he is, and asking me the same question 15 times over when he's not even expecting to get an answer, was if anything prolonging this…not to mention providing the hostility in the thread (along with a couple other foul-mouthed patrons).

Nonsense. Asking the same question 15 times over is your standard way of arguing, despite getting an answer. He on the other hand did not get an answer, because you avoided the topic as much as you could. Which we can see again by you starting another thread which is not on the previous topic, but again on your stupid reasoning.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But…whatever.

You are a liar.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Alright then

So...now, upon request, we can finally continue with the original discussion.

I started a new thread and everything...so what's your question AC? (now that I'm prepared to respond)

Answer mine instead:

Why do you believe there is objectivity in music?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Can you prove for any band that they are good or bad?

What bands are objectively good, what are bad?

Where does the objectivity come from?

He we go then, fourth thread and fourth time you're going to get beaten and put to shame.

My REQUEST: Prove any song of your choosing is good or bad objectively. Do it in ONE post, without 4 or 5 after posts.

One post to prove that a song of your choosing is good or bad, objectively, and then explain why that is. ONE POST.

If you cannot summerise and act out this request in one post, it proves you are too insecure to just put your argument out there and leave it.

-AC

EPIIIBITES, This personal vendetta against someone, who has clearly beaten you in every argument so far, is getting, really, really boring.

I think it would make more sense to leave that debate in the other thread. Start fresh.

If anyone is actually interested in doing that.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
EPIIIBITES, This personal vendetta against someone, who has clearly beaten you in every argument so far, is getting, really, really boring.

I don't think you truly realize how funny that sounds.

This is the same AC who says stuff like "I think Lily Allen sucks"...

Sure, maybe some people don’t like her…be he thinks her music sucks…

...but doesn't mean it ACUTALLY sucks...

...he just SAYS with every ounce of his being that her music sucks...

...but she doesn't REALLY suck...only to him...

...meaning her music DOESN'T suck...to me...

...which would make me wonder why he's so adamant about her sucking in the first place...

...but oh yeah, it's because he doesn't like her...so then her music sucks. So much so that he somehow thinks ridiculing people for liking her has some kind of point.

…but her music doesn’t REALLY suck…so how can it?

JUST READ THAT AND TELL ME HE’S MAKING SENSE…YEAH…THOUGHT SO.

AC...is gonna tell US about Lily Allen. The same Lily Allen who's debut album appeared on NUMEROUS people's Top 10 lists for album of the year, garnering reviews from major music magazines such as these...

-"Pop music needed saving and in Lily Allen we've found just the woman to do it."

-"Britain's new pop darling justifies all the purple prose."

-"The pop album of the year."

-"In terms of a debut record-- and especially given the weight of expectation placed on her to deliver something special-- Alright, Still isn’t anything else but a fantastic success."

-Like Blondie circa 1981, Allen breathes needed fresh air into the game.

"-Allen [is] one of the wittiest new voices in pop."

"-A simple, smart pop record by one of the most charismatic young talents to come along in a while."

"-A blast from start to finish"

But AC doesn’t like her…so then she sucks…but he doesn’t mean she ACTUALLY sucks…he’s only thinks she does…in his opinion. Which, as you can see, speaks VOLUMES.

You ask me for my request and question, I give you it, then you focus on Chillmeistergen. Why even ask me if you're not gonna answer? One more time:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But AC doesn’t like her…so then she sucks…but he doesn’t mean she ACTUALLY sucks…he’s only thinks she does…in his opinion. Which, as you can see, speaks VOLUMES.

Those quotes do not mean she's actually, objectively good. It means those people think she is, in their opinion. It doesn't matter who they work for or who they are, they are opinions.

So I am forced to ask you once again; Prove she's objectively good, and then tell me why, in one post.

Will you or will you not do this? Stop focusing on everything and everyone else, and answer my request or leave the thread. Don't keep referring to me as if you're talking to someone else, nobody else agrees with you, so deal with me, since you always wanna focus on me.

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

That's all I'm asking. If you don't do it now, I'll take it as an admittance of defeat.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you believe there is objectivity in music?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Can you prove for any band that they are good or bad?

What bands are objectively good, what are bad?

Where does the objectivity come from?

Originally posted by Ytse
I think it would make more sense to leave that debate in the other thread. Start fresh.

If anyone is actually interested in doing that.

I'll post my argument again.

But in the mean time, check this out. It sums up the end of the last thread

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How I won the argument with AC in 3 easy steps:

1) AC - “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

2) Me - He says (and maintains) he “thinks it’s shit music”…not just SAYS it’s shit music…THINKS it’s shit music.

3) Problem With AC's Reasoning - You can't THINK music is "shit" if you yourself believe there is NO SUCH THING as "good" or "shit" music. You can only just SAY it's "shit" (using the word "shit" to only express it doesn't appeal to you). If music can't truly be objectively good (as most of you think), then "good" or "shit" could ONLY be words that express how you like or dislike a song, NOT words that express how a song is good or shit in any particular way (but AC has continually disagreed with this last sentence). When he says "this song sucks" he doesn't even know what he's really saying.

---

So to sum it up...a song isn't good or crap to anyone who thinks music can't truly be objectively good...those are just the WORDS they use to express they don't like it or that it doesn't appeal to them.

But AC says stuff like "I THINK it's shit music"..."It's shit in my opinion", and ALSO says that saying words like "good" or "shit" aren't necessarily ONLY to be used to express the like or dislike of a song.

Therefore, for AC, the statement "I THINK it's shit music" is implying more than just liking or disliking the music...'cause he says using "shit" means more than just expressing he dislikes a certain piece of music...so it must also mean something else. But WHAT? There's NOTHING else it could be saying about the music if to him music can't be objetively good or crap.

He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Sure...but someone decided to close it.

A moderator closed it. And I have a feeling he'll close this one too if it's just a continuation of the previous one.

Don't restart that debate again, the debate about me and what I said, I ended it, so stop continuing it, because we'll end up with another closed thread.

EP, answer my question and request.

Here:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Just answer that, please. You asked me for my request, I give it to you, you ignore it.

THAT is the main argument, objectivity in music, not "What AC means, despite him explaining it.".

-AC

I haven't actually read your posts...because you're just being your usual pesty self...hope you're proud of yourself. I'm sure you feel great about how you act.

Now you know what I've said regarding proof...

SO DON'T TRY AND TRICK PEOPLE INTO THINKING WHAT I NEED AND DON'T NEED TO PROVE.

AND STOP ASKING THE QUESTION YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO.

You truly are insufferable.

Don't PM me saying "You know I can't prove it.".

If you can't prove it, say you can't, and stop saying the objective standard exists and you know it does. You CAN'T prove it and EVERYBODY has proven why it isn't true, so you may as well drop the argument or, keep it to yourself and shut up about it. You can't prove it, we've proven it wrong, so either stop or find proof, don't keep pushing the same "But I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IT!" bs. You somehow convincing yourself it's right based on evidence we've all refuted, doesn't count.

However, just because I want you to answer I'll ask you again:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Debate this, debate this topic, the one you spend almost a working week writing a futile argument for. Don't spend time debating me and what I say, debate the topic you're slowly abandoning.

-AC

I've already said that about proving it in the other thread. So stop pestering about it me and taking up space. It's pointless. You know the answer...and evceryone will know it when I post my argument.

And AC, I actually haven't READ any of your posts for almost a couple days now...just now that. I know whatt they're saying...the same thing over and over again.

You're tactics are ridiculous.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I've already said that about proving it in the other thread. So stop pestering about it me and taking up space. It's pointless. You know the answer...and evceryone will know it when I post my argument.

And AC, I actually haven't READ any of your posts for almost a couple days now...just now that. I know whatt they're saying...the same thing over and over again.

You're tactics are ridiculous.

Hypocrite, hmm? Ignoring my posts, asking us to read yours. Don't reference me, misquote me and discuss me if you won't read my posts.

I'll ask you again, you've admitted you cannot prove it, which would be required. We have all proven what you DO have, wrong, so you can only re-paste your argument over and over, without proving anything. Here:

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Answer it.

If you convince yourself there's an objective standard for whatever reason, fine, but don't enter a debate with OTHER PEOPLE and insist you are correct when you cannot prove it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So...I'll leave it at that. I know I'm right, there's no question about it, and there's no point discussing this any further with someone who isn't man enough to admit he's wrong even though I KNOW he knows it.

So stop.

-AC

Why do you even keep writing?...I DON'T READ YOUR POSTS AC...and most people just skip through them because they know what you're saying.

Haven't read your posts in days...they're ridiculous. So go ahead...keep wasting your time.

Like you're not replying to me now?

You do realise that everyone, from now on, is just going to keep asking you to prove the objective standard, rather than indulging your patheticism, right? You'll have to answer one of us when every post is straight to the point, not giving you anything to reply to.

Prove she's objectively good. Not quotes, not reviews, they prove nothing but opinion. YOU prove in your own words why she's objectively good, either a song or her music in general, in one post.

Answer it.

Or, to anyone else in this thread, ask him the same question, cos he "doesn't read" my posts.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wrong

Originally posted by Bardock42
And there can be qualities that you define as good or bad in songs.

I told you...

In regards to me pointing out the falacy in AC's idea about "judging" or "determining quality" in music (something that he himself says can't be objectively good or bad), you said...

"You can judge whether the person playing parts of the songs does so at a fast or slow pace. That would be one thing you can judge. There are many more, but you wouldn't understand."

GREAT...but fast or slow pace isn't the kind of stuff AC ever points to when he says "this song sucks" after APPARENTLY having judged it. No one really does! What are you on about?

Like Ytse said, you can look at things like Timbre, Pitch, Tempo, Dynamics (whether its loud or soft), and then judge and measure those things in a song...sure. But people don't say "this song sucks" or "this band sucks"...and then say it was becasue of the the pitch, timbre, or it was too slow.

Great argument!

Music (according to someone who thinks it can't be objectively good or bad) can't be judgeable IN A WAY THAT WILL LEAD THEM TO SAY "this song sucks".

People only judge it in ways to show things like tempo (which they basically NEVER use as a reason to say something like "this song sucks"😉...are you kidding me?

I'm right again it seems. Nice try though...