Opinions

[Jedi]

Get used to it, most people don't like their opinion down-sized. Unfortunately most people abide by the 'I'm entitled to my opinion' thinking it means something when it doesn't. Good is good and bad is bad, right is right and wrong is wrong.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Why do you ask if you're too lazy to read the answer?

And please don't try to translate what I said...ever.

Then don;t make things more complicated than they really are. People's attitudes are subjective, but their actions are objective. Applied morality (laws) is the balance thereof. It's pretty simple. I did read your answer. It was unnecessarily long winded.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Although I agree with you on the original post SpaceYeti, you must subject peoples "opinions" to a test of falsifiability, as well as take into account that which has not yet been proven true, false, or unfalsifiable. That is the realm of true opinion.

There are an immense number of things that you and I would believe are false, and have plenty of reason, but they are unfalsifiable none the less.

Such as?

 

[LabyrinthMind]

Then don;t make things more complicated than they really are. People's attitudes are subjective, but their actions are objective. Applied morality (laws) is the balance thereof. It's pretty simple. I did read your answer. It was unnecessarily long winded.

I graduated philosophy; have some understanding

No hard feelings, of course. I enjoy this.

 

[Alexk]

Such as?

For things not yet proven, P vs NP problem. It's a computer science, and logic, problem that asks if a set of problems NP also fall under the set of problems P, does P=NP. It hasn't been proven true, false, or unfalsifiable. But most computer scientists hold the opinion that it is false, and assuming it is false, this helps avoid a lot of issues with program efficiency. If it were true it would be revolutionary, so lets only hope it is.

As for things that are unfalsifiable, I'd suggests looking up falsifiability on Wikipedia. I'd rather not begin a debate over a specific theory.

 

[SpaceYeti]

For things not yet proven, P vs NP problem. It's a computer science, and logic, problem that asks if a set of problems NP also fall under the set of problems P, does P=NP. It hasn't been proven true, false, or unfalsifiable. But most computer scientists hold the opinion that it is false, and assuming it is false, this helps avoid a lot of issues with program efficiency. If it were true it would be revolutionary, so lets only hope it is.

As for things that are unfalsifiable, I'd suggests looking up falsifiability on Wikipedia. I'd rather not begin a debate over a specific theory.

No. I meant; What do I think is false, yet is unfalsifiable? I'd like to correct that mistake.

 

[Alexk]

I wasn't saying that anything specific you said was unfalsifiable. But for amusement, let's pretend it is my opinion that there exists a naturally born rainbow colored goose. You would probably say this is false, its a genetic anomaly, as well as completely against what one typically observes. And although your argument is far more convincing that my claim, my claim is unfalsifiable because it would require you to observe all of the geese in the world, which is impossible to verify that you have actually observed all of them.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I wouldn't say it is false, though. I'd say only that's it's extremely unlikely. Which it is.

 

[Minuend]

I don't care too much. I don't feel strongly about my opinions, or about what's right or wrong. If they said they were correct because it was their opinion, then I'd probably say something like "well, then it's my opinion that murder is right and it is true because it's my opinion". I usually oversimplify my point when arguing with others.

In some way, I don't label opinions "right" or "wrong", I see it more like... a consequence of the person's gathered experience. I suppose I'm more interested in knowing why people think what they do, than what they actually think (when it comes to such situations). There's a difference between a person who worships a god of mercy and one who worships one of destruction.

I also realize that we can never have a perfect understanding of the world. Some are less equipped than others. Which makes it okay for people to have faulty beliefs as long as it doesn't harm others. Not that harming others is morally bad, and sometimes it's necessary, but you know what I mean. We need some cooperation and play rules to have somewhat decent lives.

My opinions don't mean anything. After all, it is a uncaring universe where random happening occurs. In 100 years I'll be dead, (Cog will live entangled in his machines, coming pretty close to world domination after winning the trust of the AIs), and nobody will care or remember what I thought. I'm a tiny insignificant person who's opinion will have no effect on anything, seeing as I never do anything but think.

That said, I probably do come off as a bit stubborn or annoyed when I argue. But the annoyance is generally directed at the faulty logic, not the opinion or the person. (Not that I cant be annoyed with people or opinions, but I usually try to rationalize away the annoyance).

 

[Lobstrich]

And now I'll discuss Lobstrich's experience

Umm...no, that is not your opinion, that is a fact, just a fact.(and yes, I realize I might have sounded kind of like a douche-bag since I just told you what you opinion is and what it is not, but I seriously have no other way to say it) I mean what you basically did was address the fact (hehe) that he used the word "Accomplice" and you called him out on it. And you happened to be right in this case. Since he used the word "Accomplice" which was a word invented by and strictly defined by the Judicial system, he was completely false in his statement, and this is because that by definition, people that buy and eat meat do not fall under the requirements of being an "Accomplice" by law, and that is a fact.

In short (okay, this isn't really "short" but whatever ). What the stupid guy should have said was

"People that eat meat are just as guilty as the people that kill the animal"

and that would be his indeed be his opinion (which you could not prove right or wrong...but instead , by using the word "Accomplice" he was instead saying this...

"The law's opinion is that people that buy and eat meat are just as guilty as the people that killed the animal"

and that is false, because that is not what the law's opinion states, and the law is pretty blunt about telling you what their opinion is (ya'know, by writing it down in ink. And this would be the evidence that you could (and did) point to in order prove what the laws opinion on the subject is)

Why are you repeating me? you said exactly what I said.
I do not need lectures.

And yes. It is also my opinion. Just because it's a law doesn't mean I have to agree with it.