My OPINION

[bobbryan2]

More aggressive, but also more concise. What happens on many web forums is that a lot of viewers don't read things closely, or just skim the first few few words. If the refutation of a false statement doesn't start out with a simple counterclaim before proceeding into nuanced justification, many readers won't follow through and just keep on believing the misinformation.

An analogous problem has been observed in politics: politicians know that most voters will only listen to 10-20 seconds of any speech in a sound bite, so they can't go in gently and reply to an opponent by working through all the ways in which his reasoning is sound until finally coming to the point where flaws emerge. You've got to lead off with your conclusion if you want it to be heard.

Oh, I agree with you. I've been told I'm a fairly aggressive poster as well, but I think it's justified for all the reasons you've stated.

But even going further.... it does your arguments a disservice to try to hamstring them before you even get to them.

If I'm listening to two people give the same opinion one says.

A is true! B, C, D all point to this as fact

and the other says:

Well, I want to preface this by saying it's only my opinion. But, I think, that if you look at B, C, and D... careful consideration will lead you to the fact that A is true. But I might be wrong... did anyone else come to this conclusion?

I think it should be obvious which argument is more convincing from a rhetorical standpoint. Showing an unwillingness to believe in your own assertions damages your credibility right off the bat.

And that's not even getting into the brevity and directness of the first example, as well as fewer places to be misunderstood.

[bobbryan2]

Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion. Unless by "common ground" you mean "agreement on the definition of 'round'." "As a general rule, water freezes at 32 F" is not opinion. "32 F is cold" is opinion.

Hehe.. you started out by saying wrong... and then your second sentence proved him right.

Funny.

[Angelus_dead]

Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion.

No: as already explained above, that is not what the word "opinion" means.

An opinion is a belief you can't presently prove. Many people have opinions that are wisely considered and which are likely to turn out true, but some people hold beliefs that fly against clear evidence and global concensus. But it's still an opinion, because it is a belief without sufficient proof.

If I believe I'm taller than you, that's my opinion. If you walk up and are 218cm then I was wrong, but if I am insane or something I could retain the opinion.

[query]

first off OP thanks for stating it's your opinion, thumbs up for that.


Alas, asking what you did will be bait for those who think you are TRYING to troll (or as I call them, the moral police looking to stop trolling at all cost by closing threads; thanks vigilantes .)

Secondly, if something uses examples, then the so called "experts" come out.

You know the ones that can spend up to three pages in replies but state their "proof" in one sentence with no factual backup whatsoever since it came from them and they tested it doing something before so it MUST be true.

Gee, if only I could find a few here........


Now now, I'll not be serious on that either, if you know who you are, then knowing is half the battle (GI JOE!)

Just remember what the OP was saying but not LITERALLY, ya meanies!


Now stop flaming him, validating his point with you're "I'm right because you..." "No I'M right because the response said..."


But thanks for 6 pages of yummy fluffy goodness...I'm smilin' again!

Edit: wow became 6 AS I was typing and correcting a few typos.

[Angelus_dead]

I think it should be obvious which argument is more convincing from a rhetorical standpoint. Showing an unwillingness to believe in your own assertions damages your credibility right off the bat.

That depends on the audience, and especially their attention span or if they are "captive", plus relative positions of rank.

For some audiences, a person who goes on at length before coming to the conclusion has established himself to appear more erudite and knowledgable, and is more likely to be accepted as an authority (even or especially if they can't follow all the reasoning). That is heavily dependent on if they sit through to the end, or if they resent the boredom of listening to you when CSI is on.

[query]

Brannie made me laugh.
Opinion: boy he is wrong based on the definition of opinion (saying something is wrong being a moral decision on his belief in the intent of his post for the spirit of opinion, that is.)

No: as already explained above, that is not what the word "opinion" means.

An opinion is a belief you can't presently prove. Many people have opinions that are wisely considered and which are likely to turn out true, but some people hold beliefs that fly against clear evidence and global concensus. But it's still an opinion, because it is a belief without sufficient proof.

If I believe I'm taller than you, that's my opinion. If you walk up and are 218cm then I was wrong, but if I am insane or something I could retain the opinion.

[Samadhi]

NM i should get back to work for a little bit. /out

[Borror0]

Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion. Unless by "common ground" you mean "agreement on the definition of 'round'."

I did not mean a debate on the definition of round. While common sense inclines us to believe that the Earth is round, it does not mean it's true.

But yes, assuming that the Earth round is much more useful.

[query]

Said person would be more accepted if they followed the opening, body and conclusion method based on academic communities that is.

That method is not absolute either, but stating your point, backing up your point then concluding the point made and linking it in summary is a more efficient and attention span keeping method than somebody stating factual information for a long time then saying, for example,

"...and that is why the world is round."

If that is your intent or spirit or your point, my apologies then.

But you won't BELIEVE how many do what I just mentioned as the bad thing.


And why would the others watch CSI now when Sarah left, Warrick is dead and Grissim is gone too?

That depends on the audience, and especially their attention span or if they are "captive", plus relative positions of rank.

For some audiences, a person who goes on at length before coming to the conclusion has established himself to appear more erudite and knowledgable, and is more likely to be accepted as an authority (even or especially if they can't follow all the reasoning). That is heavily dependent on if they sit through to the end, or if they resent the boredom of listening to you when CSI is on.

[query]

a 20-sided die painted "Earth" and the sides were edited out in all visual...which is the super comspiracy

I did not mean a debate on the definition of round. While common sense inclines us to believe that the Earth is round, it does not mean it's true.

But yes, assuming that the Earth round is much more useful.

Originally Posted by branmakmuffin
Wrong. Anything which is demonstrably true or false is not opinion.

But thanks for the shooting in foot moment Bran! I laughed as stated in my prior post

And for a reason why:

Hehe.. you started out by saying wrong... and then your second sentence proved him right.

Funny.

[branmakmuffin]

No: as already explained above, that is not what the word "opinion" means.

There is the "personal preference" opinion (e.g., "Red is a more pleasing color than blue"), and there is the "scientific opinion" (e.g., "After much study, we consider that this creature is a previously unknown species of reptile").

An opinion is a belief you can't presently prove.

No, that's an example of the "scientific opinion." The "personal preference" opinion can never be proved or disproved. "Personal preference" is the kind of opinion at the heart of this discussion, since almost anything to do with DDO is a matter of personal preference.

If I believe I'm taller than you, that's my opinion. If you walk up and are 218cm then I was wrong, but if I am insane or something I could retain the opinion.

That's not your opinion, that is, as you say, what you believe. You are either right or wrong. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are in fact 217 cm tall. That would make you taller that almost everyone in the world, therefore you would be correct most of the time saying to anyone "I am taller than you." That's not an opinion, that's a reasonable belief based on the statistics regarding human height.

[branmakmuffin]

I did not mean a debate on the definition of round. While common sense inclines us to believe that the Earth is round, it does not mean it's true.

Right, the fact that it's true means that it's true.

But yes, assuming that the Earth round is much more useful.

You're taking too many philosophy classes. Whether the Earth is round is demonstrably true or false. No need to assume anything.

Hehe.. you started out by saying wrong... and then your second sentence proved him right.

I write in English. If you don't read English, we're going to have difficulties communicating.

Here, let's try again (maybe this will help query, too):

Borror0 wrote that without common ground, it's possible to say that "The Earth is round" is an opinion. That is wrong. Whether the Earth is round is demonstrably true or false, so not opinion. This was followed by a further illustration that "As a general rule, water freezes at 32 F" is also not an opinion because it is demonstrably true or false. "32 F is cold" is an opinion because it is not demonstrably true or false.

Does that help clarify?

[Borror0]

Whether the Earth is round is demonstrably true or false. No need to assume anything.

You have to make the assumption that the evidences brought are proof of the truth.

[query]

Dig holes often?

Yes, Bran is also an "Expert" as stated in my theorem's first posting...in my opinion of course.

But by all means, take some hair, and split away the spirit and intent of everybody else's post as you try to prove that wrong and prove yourself right exactly in the way the OP warned.

Edit: Is this written in English or Professorese? I keep forgetting. Oh, and he likes making sure things are written in English so he understands. Professorese he seems not to.

Right, the fact that it's true means that it's true.


You're taking too many philosophy classes. Whether the Earth is round is demonstrably true or false. No need to assume anything.


I write in English. If you don't read English, we're going to have difficulties communicating.

[branmakmuffin]

You have to make the assumption that the evidences brought are proof of the truth.

Then you are arguing a different issue, the accuracy of the evidence. Whether something is demonstrably true or false has nothing to do with how accurate the evidence is.

And in general (not for Borror0), others need to master English before they try to tackle "professorese." If you don't understand something, send a PM asking for clarification rather than attempting to "dress down" someone in the forums. I suggest they read Tarrant's posting guidelines, and next time play nice.

[query]

Paraphrased if not accididentially correctly quoted directly from Samuel L. Jackson in character.



(And meant for you directly Bran: since I correct professors and tutors in English-sans spelling as mentioned before-you may call me "Master."

Have some stones if you're going to imply me and not state my name. F in Professorese aslo, since your logic and your opinion theories both fail to hold water by both others' logic and community support here. Care to dissect the fact from the spirit of the posting more or would you like your hole to become bottomless?

I never win in opinions, but others CAN lose by stating attacks disguised as them. I don't mind even if you correlate that last point with me as I'll lose a battle when the first point/post I made won that war.

Find your spirit, and respect others' as well or nothing you post will have credibility...even when you're right.

Are we done with the attacks here on me and others now? I'm not going back and showing how that can be interpreted either. But I could make as MUCH a say as inciting as you just tried to do.

And I am in no mood to teach to a "student" this kind of melee posting any more. It's Saturday and I'm off. Others and Bran, I apologize for my innappropriate behaivor, now we will all RESPECT OPINIONS right?)

Then you are arguing a different issue, the accuracy of the evidence. Whether something is demonstrably true or false has nothing to do with how accurate the evidence is.

And in general (not for Borror0), others need to master English before they try to tackle "professorese." If you don't understand something, send a PM asking for clarification rather than attempting to "dress down" someone in the forums. I suggest they read Tarrant's posting guidelines, and next time play nice.

[Borror0]

Then you are arguing a different issue, the accuracy of the evidence.

No. Whether or not the evidence is accurate to you is an opinion. We have to share the same opinion to come to the conclusion that the Earth is round.

Let's take evolution as an example. Science does not claim that life came to be through the means of Evolution. This conclusion is yours; it is your opinion. It is not an objective unquestionable proof, as many others keep believing that life came to be through other means.

You may believe that those who disagree with you are deluded, but that is also your opinion.

You are personally judging all the argument brought to you and deciding if they are valid. It is not objective

Whether something is demonstrably true or false has nothing to do with how accurate the evidence is.

How accurate the evidence is has everything to do with whether or not a position is demonstrably true or false.

Would you really believe a position if the evidence in its favor are weak?

[branmakmuffin]

No. Whether or not the evidence is accurate to you is an opinion.

Which is exactly why it's a different issue.

[Borror0]

Which is exactly why it's a different issue.

Care to elaborate?

[branmakmuffin]

Care to elaborate?

I'm not going to play your "I explain something, then you imply I have not explained it by asking me to explain it" game.