I appreciate your compliment, but the recognition must go to my wife. She is 10 times the parent I am. BTW, +1 on your stolen seats comments in the Coupe forum. If indeed the apples don't fall too far from the tree, I suspect any little ECMO's of your choosing will have a great start in life too!
I never gave in my opinion, i was merely stating the facts that an opinion CANNOT BE PROVEN.
So it is your opinion that: it is a fact that an opinion cannot be proven? Is that what you're trying to say?
it's a fact, that an opinion cannot be proven.
FACT, not my opinion.
Really? What if your opinion is, in fact, factual? My opinion is: "1+1=2". That has been mathematically proven for several centuries now, so I guess the -real- fact is, there absolutely are times when you can prove that an opinion is correct, right and factual all at once!
Unfortunately, attempting to portray one's own subjective opinion as fact or fact as opinion is where argument logic falls flat everytime. Although you stubbornly continue to try, there is one fact and one fact only that you simply cannot logically portray as my opinion as opposed to the undisputable fact that it is. And that is the intent I personally have when making the comments I do. Unless you are acknowledging an attempt not only to put words in my mouth, but thoughts in my head as well, you cannot possibly claim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what I was thinking or the intent of my words. Anything else on your part is speculation, conjecture, fantasy, delusion or just plain old your unprovable subjective opinion and always will be. Period. Or are you suddenly going to claim to be Karmac the Magnificent and actually attempt to refute that as well?
So save your breath, it matters not one iota to me that you hold the opinions you do. In every post you are simply using new adjectives to recycle the same losing allegation in an attempt to support the same losing concept. I could tell you over and over that, contrary to your opinion, I was not "arguing" with Pman or attempting to force my own subjective opinion on anyone, but it's meaningless. What ultimately matters is that I am the one who made the comments, and clearly know and explained their intent. That is the lowest common denominator identifiable in this conversation. As a result, you are never going to be able to 'prove' that my intent should be considered your opinion rather than the fact of my own intentions. No matter how hard you click your heels together, thinking otherwise is completely nonsensical. Therefore, you are wrong and will continue to be wrong no matter how long you choose to keep up this nonsense.
Although I admit to getting a good laugh out of it, the longer [ you ] attempt to tell [ me ] exactly what [ I ] meant, the more foolish it becomes. The funny-as-hell irony of your continued 'argument'; it's all based on a house of cards made of your own opinion rather than the one real fact that matters, which makes you look like you're arguing both for and against the same principle. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Dholly arguing with Smoke is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You are going to get dirty and stinky and sooner or later you will realize that the pig is really enjoying it.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
you have to derive off course once again? you cant stick to the system we established of constantly rebutles through quotes and examples? give up?
"Really? What if your opinion is, in fact, factual? My opinion is: "1+1=2". "
wow, you figured all that out by yourself? gee whiz. well i hate to dissapoint you dolly, but 1 + 1 = 2 CANNOT be an OPINION. for it is a PROVEN THEOREM already. so what are you trying to say? everything that comes out of your mouth is a given rule? WRONG, which is why i find it painfully irritating that you argue for your opinion so much. YOU are not always right. GET IT?
"there absolutely are times when you can prove that an opinion is correct, right and factual all at once!"
ohhh, i agree dolly, but not in your example:
"Personally I didn't see anything to give the impression these parents went running for national attention. What makes you think that... simply because they agreed to an interview, something you can bet the big media outlets all hounded them for?"
this opinion is by no means a fact; and i know what you are referring to. you are referring to what you stated about the money issue concerning the family, so on and so forth. which for the one hundreth time in this thread alone is NOT what my argument is based on. it never has... and it never will be!
"Although you stubbornly continue to try, there is one fact and one fact only that you simply cannot logically portray as my opinion as opposed to the undisputable fact that it is."
once again, you are talking about the money concerns of the family(since they remain the ONLY piece of FACTS which you have offered), which is NOT what i basing this argument on. do i have to reitterate what the argument is about, AGAIN? did you lose track of the conversion, AGAIN? old age
"The funny-as-hell irony of your continued 'argument'; it's all based on a house of cards made of your own opinion rather than the one real fact that matters, which makes you look like you're arguing both for and against the same principle."
ahh, but you see, you were CLEARLY trying to make pman agree with your train of thought. it is not my opinion, it is something that you have made evident, without a doubt. whether in your mind you attempted to not force it upon him, you just couldnt help yourself. it's sort of when an athiest comes across a christian; the christian will always (perhaps unwillingly) make an attempt to prove why there is a God. most of the time, they think they're not forcing the non believer into a religion, but to the contrary of what they're doing subconsciencly, they end up saying they were not forcing the athiest into a faith.
now, lets look at the principles dholly. can we at least agree that you were tyring to debate with pman? can we agree on that much?
ok, now according to the verb definition of debate, it means "to turn over in one's mind."
so what does this tell you dholly? there cannot be a debate unless there is an attempt to change mindframes of the opposer. PERIOD. so how are you going to tell me you werent attempting to force your opinion on pman... if that's the entire purpose of a debate!?!?! right now, you and I are engaged in a debate. but i'm arguing with the FACT that you cannot prove an opinion. you on the other hand, are arguing with the overused phrase "stop telling me what i think"
Dholly arguing with Smoke is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You are going to get dirty and stinky and sooner or later you will realize that the pig is really enjoying it.
Dude, I'm with Gamma...I've not heard of 9/10's of those shows! Apparently, I don't spend enought time in front of my TV! I guess that means I'm safe from being "gayified" by Hollywood
That just shows that there is more to your life than TV. Good for you! As they say, everything in moderation.
However, as a Latino, I have developed a new hypothesis from this forum: despite all the children Latino families may have (large families, check the census), they still don't gain the nationwide acceptance on TV as others who have 16 kids (blessed vs. "all they do is have kids and stay in the country").
Therefore in order to reach a greater audience, Latinos should start acting gay and therefore reach a greater audience through TV and shed the stereotypes that mainstream America gives them. This will cause a raucus and maybe people will stop watching so much TV (except for Crocodile Hunter, because we just can't wait for Steve to get eaten).
Dude, I'm with Gamma...I've not heard of 9/10's of those shows! Apparently, I don't spend enought time in front of my TV! I guess that means I'm safe from being "gayified" by Hollywood
That just shows that there is more to your life than TV. Good for you! As they say, everything in moderation.
However, as a Latino, I have developed a new hypothesis from this forum: despite all the children Latino families may have (large families, check the census), they still don't gain the nationwide acceptance on TV as others who have 16 kids (blessed vs. "all they do is have kids and stay in the country").
Therefore in order to reach a greater audience, Latinos should start acting gay and therefore reach a greater audience through TV and shed the stereotypes that mainstream America gives them. This will cause a raucus and maybe people will stop watching so much TV (except for Crocodile Hunter, because we just can't wait for Steve to get eaten).
You guys are both bringing home the bacon. One guy's posts are too damn long to look through and the other has some pretty vile spelling, either way I'm just trying to make a point.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
You guys are both bringing home the bacon. One guy's posts are too damn long to look through and the other has some pretty vile spelling, either way I'm just trying to make a point.
You guys are both bringing home the bacon. One guy's posts are too damn long to look through and the other has some pretty vile spelling, either way I'm just trying to make a point.
dholly, lets team up against him
Not so fast, GZire has a valid point. Your spelling has serious room for improvement.
Sorry GZire, I think I have found my cure for insomnia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeG305
well i hate to dissapoint you dolly, but 1 + 1 = 2 CANNOT be an OPINION. for it is a PROVEN THEOREM already.
Guess again, they are not mutually exclusive properties. A theorem generally has a set-up, ie., a number of conditions, which may be listed in the theorem or described beforehand. Then it has a conclusion, ie., a mathematical statement which is true under the given set up. The proof, though necessary to the statement's classification as a theorem, is not considered part of the theorem.
Besides, who said I used that equation specifically as an example of a theorem? It could just as easily be considered a lemma, material proposition or logical condition. And, of course, everyone knows that in logic there is no single interpretation of the conditional; it always represents a variety of closely-related concepts. Many people find that the material conditional does not always function in accordance with their intuitive ideas about if-then reasoning. <-- This would be you.
That's because the material conditional allows implications to be true even when the antecedent and the consequent have no logical connection. For example, it's commonly accepted that the sun is made of gas, on one hand, and that 3 is a prime number, on the other. The standard definition of implication allows us to conclude that: since the sun is made of gas, 3 is a prime number. This is arguably synonymous to the following: the sun's being made of gas makes 3 be a prime number. Many people intuitively think that this is false, because the sun and the number three simply have nothing to do with one another, but that is incorrect.
Logicians have tried to address this concern by developing alternative logics, e.g. relevant logic and vacuous truth. Plus, material conditional is not designed to deal with counterfactuals and other cases that people often find in if-then reasoning. This inspired development of modal logic. But the biggest trouble is that the material conditional is such that P AND ¬P → Q, regardless of what Q is taken to mean (insert OPINION here, ). That is, a contradiction implies that absolutely everything is true. In traditional logic, a statement if A then B is true if and only if either A is false or B is true, or both are false. A classic case of wanting your cake and eating it too. Logicians concerned with this have tried to develop paraconsistent logics, but I'll spare you the details.
Just another example where your personal intrepretation or opinion does not necessarily equal my intentions. Stop taking it upon yourself to assume anything. If you need clarification, just ask.
"Personally I didn't see anything to give the impression these parents went running for national attention. What makes you think that... simply because they agreed to an interview, something you can bet the big media outlets all hounded them for?"
this opinion is by no means a fact; and i know what you are referring to. you are referring to what you stated about the money issue concerning the family, so on and so forth.
Wrong. I am now totally convinced me that you could not determine the diifference between an observation, opinion or fact unless someone stamped it on your forehead. Clue: "I didn't see anything to give the impression" is an observation. If I meant to present it as my opinion it would have begun: "I don't think these parents..." And, exactly where is the point in that underlined mess of thought? You need to be more articulate and detailed.
once again, you are talking about the money concerns of the family(since they remain the ONLY piece of FACTS which you have offered)
Wrong. I am not talking about the family's money concerns in that statement. Go back and read the entire comment for the one and only fact that matters before [ You ] attempt to tell [ me ] what [ I ] meant.
ahh, but you see, you were CLEARLY trying to make pman agree with your train of thought. it is not my opinion, it is something that you have made evident, without a doubt.
Wrong. I am convinced you are either cognitively impaired or have the attention span of a 5 year old. I just said "I have simply stated my observations and asked why they may be incorrect in Pman's opinion. I was giving Pman an opportunity to support his observations or rebut mine. ". Nothings changed but still [ you ] are attempting to tell [ me ] what [ I ] meant... again!? You were wrong before and you're still wrong. Move along.
now, lets look at the principles dholly. can we at least agree that you were tyring to debate with pman? can we agree on that much?
No, it takes two to debate. Until Pman chooses to reply there isn't even a conversation, let alone a debate, happening. Regardless, it would depend entirely on which definition of 'debate' you apply; there are several:
ok, now according to the verb definition of debate, it means "to turn over in one's mind."
What Dime Store Dictionary did you pull that p.o.s. definition from? Jeez, you're a college student, get a real dictionary:
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.
so what does this tell you dholly? there cannot be a debate unless there is an attempt to change mindframes of the opposer. PERIOD.
Sorry, don't see that condition in any of the definitions above.
so how are you going to tell me you werent attempting to force your opinion on pman... if that's the entire purpose of a debate!?!?!
The purpose of debating is to practice defending your ideas or proposals during an active discussion. To assert the purpose of debating automatically includes an attempt to "force your opinion" on an opponent or audience is utter nonsense. As proof, simply look at the last presidential election debates. The participants presented and articulated their ideas, they didn't "force" anything on anybody. Unless, of course, you still consider simply stating your opinion as "forcing". I thought we already settled that.
right now, you and I are engaged in a debate. but i'm arguing with the FACT that you cannot prove an opinion. you on the other hand, are arguing with the overused phrase "stop telling me what i think"
Aack, Flip flopper!!
Me - "there absolutely are times when you can prove that an opinion is correct, right and factual all at once!"
You - "ohhh, i agree dolly"
Dholly, if you were actually a woman I'd be staring at your boobs long before I got through paragraph 1 of your post whereas if I was standing next to Smoke I would be staring at him because he is a boob.
__________________
Now I'm just laid bad - G35Princess
R.I.P. MBC
