The "You Know What" Thread

EP, if you "know" you're right and we're all wrong, why are you here trying to prove it to people you clearly feel don't understand and are beneath you? Why not just walk away?

Bardock, do not keep replying in my defense, it's ok. Let him think what he wants, he knows he's wrong about my point, so do you.

Just keep asking him to prove his initial argument, like this:

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.

EP?

-AC

I'm just gonna guess what your last post was about.

I already told you I'll post my argument when I'm ready.

Stop being a pest.

If you're so right, if we're all so ignorant and incapable of understanding and you know it's pointless, why are you still here? I will tell you why. You know for a fact that the only reason you are posting is because NOT posting would make you feel like you've lost.

Besides, you already said "Taste is subjective.". Taste is all we have to judge how good or bad music is outside of technique.

So you truthfully agree with all of us that there's no objective standard, you're just bsing. You know you agree, you factually know it, don't deny it. You agreed with me. I'm telling you that you agreed.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
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.

I doubt that actually surprises anyone.

AC, I already responded to YOUR question...I did.

I PM'd you...and gave the response I wanted to give.

But after that (and I knew you'd do this) you keep asking the same question in order to trick people...even though my response told you how it's an INVALID QUESTION according to my argument.

But whatever...

People were asking for the argument that my other thread was about - As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread...

So I'll give my argument for THIS...

I, EPIIIBITES, CLAIM THAT SOME MUSIC IS “TRULY” CRAP.

THIS IS (THE SHORT VERSION) OF MY ARGUMENT AS TO WHY.

…and ACTUALLY read it….don’t just drop in and say something like “but I like this song!”

OK

First off, let me say this. I am a kind of person who can say he likes a band , likes their music, but can stand back, look at them more closely, and say that they’re not “actually” all that good. Just because I like their music, it doesn’t get in the way of me realizing how bad they “actually” might be. Even the other way around…I might hate a band (like The Police or Dave Matthews Band), hate their music, but can admit they’re not “actually” bad…it’s just that I don’t like them. It doesn’t do it for me. It doesn’t strike a chord. But I don’t let that get in the way of me realizing how decent a band they are and how decent the music they make is. But I ALSO can look at someone like Ashlee Simpson and (regardless if I like her or not) can point to a thousand reasons why her music is “actually” crap.

Thing is, a lot of people have their opinions of how they feel about a certain band or certain music tied to how they critique them, and they can’t separate themselves from saying they like a certain band’s music, and seeing how the music that this band makes might not actually be all that good…which I think is kinda shallow.

Someone likes Nickleback…which is fine in itself…but they can’t see how Nickleback really aren’t all that good, and that they’re music is actually kinda weak.

Makes sense to me. But…what do I know, right?

Now, let me explain my argument…answering Bardock42's questions

------

Why do you believe there is objectivity in music?

Because universal truths exist. There IS a good/bad, and there IS a right/wrong. If there wasn't, then there'd be no ACTUAL difference in something like how just someone like Hitler is compared to how just Mother Theresa is. There would be no ACTUAL difference between the two in how just they are as human beings. But I, along with most intelligent-minded people would say that there's gotta be an ACTUAL difference between how just Hitler is compared to Mother Theresa. Otherwise, the alternative is ridiculous...that he might very well be considered AS JUST a human being as her (maybe from a fellow German during Nazi Germany or something like that).

Now, in order for there to be an ACTUAL difference there (like most intelligent people would say there would have to be), an objective standard of justice would have to exist to determine this difference (not describe WHAT the difference is and WHY, simply to determine the difference to be there). It wouldn’t be something we could use to measure HOW Hitler is less just then Mother Theresa or WHY…but it could serve as a way to determine a difference that most intelligent people would say would have to just be there (considering the alternative is preposterous).

So, compared to music…(and follow the direct comparisons within the paragraphs).

Saying there is no objectivity in music would mean that Ashlee Simpson's music could very well be as accomplished as Jimi Hendrix's music...again, most intelligent people/musicians and especially those with informed opinions on music would say that there's gotta be an ACTUAL difference between how accomplished Ashlee Simpson’s music is compared to Jimi Hendrix’s. Otherwise, the alternative is ridiculous...that her music might very well be considered AS ACCOMPLISHED as his (maybe from a fellow teenage pop fan or something like that).

Now, in order for there to be an ACTUAL difference there (like most intelligent people/musicians and those with informed opinions on music would say there would have to be), an objective standard of music would have to exist to determine this difference (not describe WHAT the difference is and WHY, simply to determine the difference to be there). It wouldn’t be something we could use to measure HOW Ashlee Simpson’s music is less accomplished then Jimi Hendrix’s or WHY…but it could serve as a way to determine a difference that most intelligent people/musicians and those with informed opinions on music would say would have to just be there (considering the alternative is preposterous).

And if you want to know the real details of this stuff you would have to read my original posts on the first page of the As requested - The argument about crap music...and a (fair) poll thread.

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

None...never said I had evidence. But the thing is, things can exist in reality without evidence to support it. For example, just because there is no evidence God exists, doesn't mean he doesn't. I have no actual evidence, proof, or facts. Never said I did. BUT, I have TONS more to support my claim than ANYONE has ever put forward to support their‘s (and counter mine)…and if you understand what I put forward for my argument AND have an informed opinion on music, then you will certainly understand where I’m coming from when I say that there’s has to be an ACTUAL difference between Ashlee Simpson’s music compared to Jimi Hendrix’s music in how accomplished it is musically.

Again, if you want to know the real details, read my original posts on the last thread.

But in brief…

First…people with informed opinions on music (maybe, say, a writer for Rolling Stone magazine) have a much more valid opinion regarding music than just some guy who might only ever listen to music on his way to work or something. Again, I’m not gonna get into details as to why…go check it out yourself. But just like (as I said earlier) a fellow German during Nazi Germany could say something as preposterous as Hitler being more just or even as just as Mother Theresa…the dude who only ever really listens to music on his way to work COULD say something as preposterous as Nickleback being better as accomplished musically as Led Zeppelin. But some people’s opinions are more valid than others…I’m sorry, they just are…and in this case, the guy with the informed opinion on music from Rolling Stone magazine would have the more valid opinion. Again, even though there are no facts to speak of here, I’m just supporting my argument with what I think are reasonable claims.

Second,…there is a common phenomenon where SOMEHOW tons of people with informed opinions on music will, often and uniformly, point to the same music/artist/album as being “crap”. It will also occur (although not as common) that they will point to the same music/artist/album as being good (although it’s easier to distinguish with music being considered crap) . Now of course people with informed opinions on music won’t ALWAYS agree EVERY time, but MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, someone with an informed opinion on music will be able to recognize that certain music (which TONS of other people with informed opinions have labelled as crap) is crap. And NOT ONLY THAT, but people with informed opinions will commonly point to MANY of the SAME determining factors (the music is shallow, uninspired, has no soul, isn’t innovative, is contrived, has corny lyrics, has no depth, etc…) as reasons for why certain music is largely addressed as crap? Now how does that happen? Sure this doesn’t actually give any facts, but does it mean nothing at all? Can you just completely deny this and not consider what it could mean?

Once more, LOTS more in my original post. And again, I’m not saying what I just said gives any proof, I’m further supporting my claim.

And third…if there wasn’t objectively bad music, then that would simply mean that you couldn’t possible make bad music if you tried…an idea that most intelligent musicians would think preposterous. But of course you could make bad music if you tried…and again, more on this in the original post.

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

No. I never said I can prove it.

What bands are objectively good, what are bad?

The Beatles are good...Nickleback are bad.

Massive Attack are good...2 Unlimited are bad.

Led Zeppelin are good…Creed are bad.

Jimi Hendrix is good…Ashlee Simpson is bad

Where does the objectivity come from?

It either simply exists...(kinda like a Platonic "ideal form" exists), or it is created by a creator. It doesn’t matter EXACTLY where it comes from…I’m making a claim that it exists.

------

Now before I sum it up, the last thing I wanna add (which kinda ties into the last discussion we were having) is that I think it’s kinda strange when people say something like “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap?” in response to my argument that music is objective. And I kinda mentioned this at the beginning.

Thing is…I think taste is subjective…and I‘ve always said this…meaning each person likes what they like…and that’s totally fine. But to say “I like it…therefore who’s to say it’s crap?”, and suggest that somehow your taste should support the music you like as not being considered crap, is ridiculous…because a) if you don’t think there’s such a thing as “crap” music to begin with, then you shouldn’t even be asking a question like that…it’s contradictory, and b) maybe you haven’t considered that your opinion in music might not be as valid as someone who might have an informed opinion on music (you know…someone who just SOMEHOW will more often than not end up largely agreeing with others who have informed opinions on music on a lot of the same stuff being crap…AND give much of the same reasons for this from determining factors such as originality, substance, etc…).

But no…people still maintain that if they like it, then who’s to say it’s crap?

Ok

<cont>

<cont>

So to sum up, I don’t claim to have any “facts“ to support my argument…but as I said, something can exist even though there aren’t facts to prove it. (i.e. The earth existed before anyone knew of facts of it existing….and it was round before anyone knew of any facts of it not being flat…and even today there might be tons of deep sea underwater creatures that exist even though there‘s no evidence they do … and as I said before, God might exist even though there is no evidence he does, etc…). But since I nor you are an omnipotent being that knows all things and has perfect intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge etc……then if we had to choose between one argument over the other, any intelligent person would have to look at what I’ve put forward, compared to what the opposition has put forward (which has ONLY ever been “there’s no facts!”), and realise that I have far more to support what I claim is the truth about music than the alternative does.

And again, remember, the alternative suggests that Jimi Hendrix’s music is IN NO WAY more accomplished than Ashlee Simpson’s. Ok then…YOU’RE right

That's it.

(...now everybody watch AC only respond with "but there's no fatcs in your argument". I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he doesn’t get THE ARGUMENT.)

NOW...

What gives further insight into my argument FOR objectivity of music, is my argument (and it’s reeeeeally simple) AGAINST the way SOME PEOPLE use subjectivity of music (a way that completely contradicts itself and doesn’t really say what some think it does when they comment on music). It says NOTHING really…(apart form the obvious…. that the music appeals to them or doesn‘t appeal to them).

Some people get this…but AC is a perfect example of someone who doesn’t.

1) AC (who believes in no objectively good/bad music)- “So if I think something is boring or dull, like Arctic Monkeys, I think it's shit music, like Lily Allen."

2) Me (who believes in objectively good/bad music) - 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 objectively good or crap.

He doesn't even GET how he's being contradictory. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for reading

First off, reported for spamming, again. I'm glad you took time out from PMing a mod and threatening him to take action against me for asking you a question, when you complained that I reported you for doing the same.

However, let's move on to the part where you summed up your entire argument:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Saying there is no objectivity in music would mean that Ashlee Simpson's music could very well be as accomplished as Jimi Hendrix's music...again, most intelligent people/musicians and especially those with informed opinions on music would say that there's gotta be an ACTUAL difference between how accomplished Ashlee Simpson’s music is compared to Jimi Hendrix’s. Otherwise, the alternative is ridiculous...that her music might very well be considered AS ACCOMPLISHED as his (maybe from a fellow teenage pop fan or something like that).

False. It means that anybody can like anything, think it's good, and not be wrong or right.

What do you mean by accomplished? She's not a better musician, and that can be proven. As far as songs go, nobody can prove that Voodoo Chile is better than La La. Nobody on this planet can prove that, not writers, not critics, not fans and not you. I think it is, I think Ashlee Simpson's music is tripe, but that is my opinion, and it's only opinion, that's all this will ever be. There being no objectivity outside of technical aspects does NOT suggest that music is equal, it suggests that neither can simply be proven to be better or worse because that depends entirely on the individual. Let's move on to the next point:

When asked where your evidence is, you replied:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
None...never said I had evidence.

When asked if you can prove it, you said:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No. I never said I can prove it.

So when asked, ultimately, why you believe this truth exists, you suggested, based on absolutely nothing but your own mind:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It either simply exists...(kinda like a Platonic "ideal form" exists), or it is created by a creator. It doesn’t matter EXACTLY where it comes from…I’m making a claim that it exists.

Then you have the nerve to say this:

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
any intelligent person would have to look at what I’ve put forward, compared to what the opposition has put forward (which has ONLY ever been “there’s no facts!”), and realise that I have far more to support what I claim is the truth about music than the alternative does.

You have nothing but a million and one reasons why you believe what you believe. You have nothing that we cannot refute, nothing we haven't refuted.

All you can do is repost your argument, convince yourself we agree, convince yourself you're right, and then tell us we don't understand.

You fail.

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.

Everyone ask him this, let's see if he'll finally give us one straight post to answer this claim, not five.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Everyone ask him this, let's see if he'll finally give us one straight post to answer this claim, not five.

-AC

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.

You're welcome.

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

EP...

Saying that you have no proof for your claim several times throughout your argument renders it ineffectual really fast. Because if you have no evidence for it's objectivity then it means your entire argument is mere opinion...which is subjective.

Originally posted by Ytse
EP...

Saying that you have no proof for your claim several times throughout your argument renders it ineffectual really fast. Because if you have no evidence for it's objectivity then it means your entire argument is mere opinion...which is subjective.

Yeah. All this has been covered a myriad of times. Basically the argument has died many deaths, each more hideous than the last.

He continues to post so it seems he's still in it. Not that it does.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
[B]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 [/B]

Ha ha

---

10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.

THEY understand the concept that you fail to...

THERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PROOF FOR SOMETHING TO ACUTALLY EXIST!

THEY GET THIS.

YOU DON'T.

AND IT'S EVEN EXPLAINED IN THE ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER.

If it was so OBVIOUSLY ridiculous, the all 10 of these people would’ve OBVIOUSLY disagreed with me on it...but it is not a concept most people understand (CLEARLY). That‘s why most people disagree with the argument.

---

And just so everyone knows, AC is SO frightened by the very idea that all these people do agreed with me, that he’s actually PM’d me and accused me of making ALIASES to vote to for my own argument on the polls…that’s what he’s resorted to. Incredible.

You guys are really doing a number on yourselves by actually posting that question. Hilarious. Maybe you should consider that perhaps you're not capable of grasping the idea...as well as probably the rest of the argument….instead of thinking you’ve pointed out the obvious. MOST people aren't capable of grasping it, so don’t worry.

My whole argument is a very difficult one to understand, and it’s quite a large idea. THAT'S why it takes 4 posts to fully explain, and THAT'S why MOST people don't get it.

I'm done explaining it to people who aren't even capable of grasping such a concept. EVERY argument people put fourth, I knock down...especially AC's. It's pointless. Maybe you're capable of grasping other concepts...not this one.

BTW. This will basically be my post from now on...it's the ONLY thing TO post.

Thanks for your efforts.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.

Well if this is a matter of opinion (which is what these polls measure) then it cannot be objective.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

10 people have agreed with me on this already according to the polls we've had...and that's pretty much all I expected.

9 of which are your socks.

I would say friends....but....well, obviously that's not the case.

baa baa black sheep have you any wool?
yes sir yes sir three bags full

Originally posted by Ytse
Well if this is a matter of opinion (which is what these polls measure) then it cannot be objective.

Ok then...so if it's people's OPINION (which is what these polls measure) that the earth is flat, then "it cannot be objective"....'cause according to you, it's a matter of their opinion.

...oops!

But the funny thing is here, most people are gonna jump all over this idea, simply because it's something against my argument that SOUNDS semi-clever. Happens all the time that most people here (though not all) will agree with any old thing that comes along...and that's where as a group they start to look ridiculous.

...but maybe now they won't because I mentioned it (and boy, I hope not, 'cause unfortunately it's a faulty point)...