What would they accomplish by burning Korans...?Aw man.:(
GD-1369211121
Koran burning cancelled
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont need a clarification. Thats not the point. I knew how you defined interpretation. And thus I applied the same looseness of definition for notions such as "hypocritical", "arrogant" and so on.Teenaged
Ok, then, go ahead.
I picked the first listed definition the page, dude. The terms were used consistently. The context of the argument was unaffected by the looseness of the term, as he directly stated that he took no opinion on the text whatsoever while claiming that the text specifically did not say something. Furthermore, "literal" translations are greatly subjective, and this is greatly exacerbated by multiple translations and two thousand year's time passing.
Since we have entered the realm of dictionaries, oxford online dictionary has a different interpretation which supports my side of the argument when I explained why Ninja-Hippo did not infer meaning/did not interpret: 1 explain the meaning of (information or actions) http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0417640#m_en_gb0417640 It uses simply the verb "explain". Did Ninja-Hippo explain any version of his own? Did he explain anything at all about the meaning of the text, did he try to make a meaning out of in other words? No. The point though is that dictionary definitions are useless because they too consist of words that can be stretched, would you not agree? What "explain" means to me is just a fraction of the meaning of that word for another person. Words arent that precise or uninterpretable.Ninja stated that the Bible doesn't state anything about infallibility of the Pope. To know whether or not that is true, one must know what the text states, or make such statements blindly. He then further claimed to not know what the text stated.
Perhaps interpret wasn't the best word, but as I said, the context of the argument does not change.
[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]He said he postponed it I think. They may still burn them. You guys are saying this as if burning Korans will have any positive results...-_-Aw man.:(
Snipes_2
Also the oxford dictionary supports my use of the words "arrogant". ------- having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities ------- Which is what I said: trying to interpret (the way you define "interpret") the Bible is indirectly trusting my abilities to know what it says. Even if I do have doubts, I still place faith on my abilities to extract meaning out of the word of God, and that I am good at it (maybe few people claim to be good, but in honesty if one truly thought they were bad at it, they wouldnt try, so claims dont matter here). That in effect implies, not only that I will get it right while millions of others havent (which is arrogance towards my fellow humans) but that I also have the capability to understand God's intentions, which is arrogance towards God.Teenaged
Yes, and I understood your use of arrogance.
You don't need to assume you're good at it. You're just doing the best you think you can with it. You don't claim to know God's intentions either.
[QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]What would they accomplish by burning Korans...? Burning the Quran is no more offensive than building a mosque on ground zero.Aw man.:(
ghoklebutter
Ninja stated that the Bible doesn't state anything about infallibility of the Pope. To know whether or not that is true, one must know what the text states, or make such statements blindly. He then further claimed to not know what the text stated.Perhaps interpret wasn't the best word, but as I said, the context of the argument does not change.coolbeans90"interpret" isnt the best word or the right word (or "infer" which is the word LJS used for the same thing). And herein lies the problem of the whole branched-out argument whose efforts was to show how supposedly Ninja-Hippo's defiance of inferences as them simply being inferences, backfired. It didnt. You mean the essence of the argument -if indeed the Bible supports the case of Pope's infallibility? I dont know about that and didnt comment on it.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]What would they accomplish by burning Korans...? Burning the Quran is no more offensive than building a mosque on ground zero. Oh, so do you consider this retaliation?Aw man.:(
GD-1369211121
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Also the oxford dictionary supports my use of the words "arrogant". ------- having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities ------- Which is what I said: trying to interpret (the way you define "interpret") the Bible is indirectly trusting my abilities to know what it says. Even if I do have doubts, I still place faith on my abilities to extract meaning out of the word of God, and that I am good at it (maybe few people claim to be good, but in honesty if one truly thought they were bad at it, they wouldnt try, so claims dont matter here). That in effect implies, not only that I will get it right while millions of others havent (which is arrogance towards my fellow humans) but that I also have the capability to understand God's intentions, which is arrogance towards God.coolbeans90
Yes, and I understood your use of arrogance.
You don't need to assume you're good at it. You're just doing the best you think you can with it. You don't claim to know God's intentions either.
But if I truly believe I am not good at something (not just as a form of self-deprecation or simply self-criticism) then I wouldnt try to do something. I dont claim to know God's intentions, but I implicitely claim to be able to know them. Sure I can know some but I think it is a widely accepted phrase among Christianity that God's will is unknown (for some issues at least).[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]What would they accomplish by burning Korans...? Burning the Quran is no more offensive than building a mosque on ground zero.No its not the same. Burning the Qurans was explicitely scheduled as a means of protest, while the building of a Mosque NEAR and not ON Ground Zero was not claimed to be an actioned aimed for protest or provocation. You can just assume. No matter how those assumptions can be somewhat understandable, they are still far from fact. So you have an act with explicit intentions being x and another act with ASSUMED intentions being x. Not the same thing.Aw man.:(
GD-1369211121
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Ninja stated that the Bible doesn't state anything about infallibility of the Pope. To know whether or not that is true, one must know what the text states, or make such statements blindly. He then further claimed to not know what the text stated.Perhaps interpret wasn't the best word, but as I said, the context of the argument does not change.Teenaged"interpret" isnt the best word or the right word (or "infer" which is the word LJS used for the same thing). And herein lies the problem of the whole branched-out argument whose efforts was to show how supposedly Ninja-Hippo's defiance of inferences as them simply being inferences, backfired. It didnt. You mean the essence of the argument -if indeed the Bible supports the case of Pope's infallibility? I dont know about that and didnt comment on it.
Ninja's would have no basis to state that the Bible says nothing about infallibility without understanding what the text says. Either inference, or ignorance.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Also the oxford dictionary supports my use of the words "arrogant". ------- having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities ------- Which is what I said: trying to interpret (the way you define "interpret") the Bible is indirectly trusting my abilities to know what it says. Even if I do have doubts, I still place faith on my abilities to extract meaning out of the word of God, and that I am good at it (maybe few people claim to be good, but in honesty if one truly thought they were bad at it, they wouldnt try, so claims dont matter here). That in effect implies, not only that I will get it right while millions of others havent (which is arrogance towards my fellow humans) but that I also have the capability to understand God's intentions, which is arrogance towards God.Teenaged
Yes, and I understood your use of arrogance.
You don't need to assume you're good at it. You're just doing the best you think you can with it. You don't claim to know God's intentions either.
But if I truly believe I am not good at something (not just as a form of self-deprecation or simply self-criticism) then I wouldnt try to do something. I dont claim to know God's intentions, but I implicitely claim to be able to know them. Sure I can know some but I think it is a widely accepted phrase among Christianity that God's will is unknown (for some issues at least).One needn't to.
"interpret" isnt the best word or the right word (or "infer" which is the word LJS used for the same thing). And herein lies the problem of the whole branched-out argument whose efforts was to show how supposedly Ninja-Hippo's defiance of inferences as them simply being inferences, backfired. It didnt. You mean the essence of the argument -if indeed the Bible supports the case of Pope's infallibility? I dont know about that and didnt comment on it.[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Ninja stated that the Bible doesn't state anything about infallibility of the Pope. To know whether or not that is true, one must know what the text states, or make such statements blindly. He then further claimed to not know what the text stated.Perhaps interpret wasn't the best word, but as I said, the context of the argument does not change.coolbeans90
Ninja's would have no basis to state that the Bible says nothing about infallibility without understanding what the text says. Either inference, or ignorance.
If we equate "inference" to "stance".[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]"interpret" isnt the best word or the right word (or "infer" which is the word LJS used for the same thing). And herein lies the problem of the whole branched-out argument whose efforts was to show how supposedly Ninja-Hippo's defiance of inferences as them simply being inferences, backfired. It didnt. You mean the essence of the argument -if indeed the Bible supports the case of Pope's infallibility? I dont know about that and didnt comment on it.Teenaged
Ninja's would have no basis to state that the Bible says nothing about infallibility without understanding what the text says. Either inference, or ignorance.
If we equate "inference" to "stance".One either has a basis for the stance, or not.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Yes, and I understood your use of arrogance.You don't need to assume you're good at it. You're just doing the best you think you can with it. You don't claim to know God's intentions either.coolbeans90But if I truly believe I am not good at something (not just as a form of self-deprecation or simply self-criticism) then I wouldnt try to do something. I dont claim to know God's intentions, but I implicitely claim to be able to know them. Sure I can know some but I think it is a widely accepted phrase among Christianity that God's will is unknown (for some issues at least).One needn't to. So one can try to understand God, while thinking he cant possibly understand him? And lets accept that that is not a necessity logically. Pragmatically though isnt it true? I mean dont people who try to understand the Bible believe on some level that they can understand God?
If we equate "inference" to "stance".[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Ninja's would have no basis to state that the Bible says nothing about infallibility without understanding what the text says. Either inference, or ignorance.
coolbeans90
One either has a basis for the stance, or not.
But there are many types of bases one can have. They can have an inference, they can have an interpretation. But they dont have to have either of those. Like I explained several times, I have been in situations where I had to disagree with an opinion (my disagreement would be my thesis right?) while not having my own formed opinion on the subject.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But if I truly believe I am not good at something (not just as a form of self-deprecation or simply self-criticism) then I wouldnt try to do something. I dont claim to know God's intentions, but I implicitely claim to be able to know them. Sure I can know some but I think it is a widely accepted phrase among Christianity that God's will is unknown (for some issues at least).TeenagedOne needn't to. So one can try to understand God, while thinking he cant possibly understand him? And lets accept that that is not a necessity logically. Pragmatically though isnt it true? I mean dont people who try to understand the Bible believe on some level that they can understand God?
Yes. And even if one perfectly understands the Bible, one very well might never be able to understand God while on this earth, and if ever so, only through his will.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]If we equate "inference" to "stance".Teenaged
One either has a basis for the stance, or not.
But there are many types of bases one can have. They can have an inference, they can have an interpretation. But they dont have to have either of those. Like I explained several times, I have been in situations where I had to disagree with an opinion (my disagreement would be my thesis right?) while not having my own formed opinion on the subject.You would have enough of an opinion on the subject to reject an opinion on it.
Alright, I'm out for now. Will be back later.
So one can try to understand God, while thinking he cant possibly understand him? And lets accept that that is not a necessity logically. Pragmatically though isnt it true? I mean dont people who try to understand the Bible believe on some level that they can understand God?[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]One needn't to.coolbeans90
Yes. And even if one perfectly understands the Bible, one very well might never be able to understand God while on this earth, and if ever so, only through his will.
But the Bible surely contains some parts of God's will that are not accessible to us. After all, all we have as a basis for what god is/thinks/wills etc is the Bible, and yet we still speak of God's will as something unknown. That implies that the Bible is not the part of Gods will we can fully understand but that the Bible isnt fully understandable, as in all of Gods wills expressed in it arent decypherable.But there are many types of bases one can have. They can have an inference, they can have an interpretation. But they dont have to have either of those. Like I explained several times, I have been in situations where I had to disagree with an opinion (my disagreement would be my thesis right?) while not having my own formed opinion on the subject.[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
One either has a basis for the stance, or not.
coolbeans90
You would have enough of an opinion on the subject to reject an opinion on it.
Alright, I'm out for now. Will be back later.
"Enough of an opinion" is another vague comment that is worse that semantics deployed on dictionary definitions.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"] So one can try to understand God, while thinking he cant possibly understand him? And lets accept that that is not a necessity logically. Pragmatically though isnt it true? I mean dont people who try to understand the Bible believe on some level that they can understand God?Teenaged
Yes. And even if one perfectly understands the Bible, one very well might never be able to understand God while on this earth, and if ever so, only through his will.
But the Bible surely contains some parts of God's will that are not accessible to us. After all, all we have as a basis for what god is/thinks/wills etc is the Bible, and yet we still speak of God's will as something unknown. That implies that the Bible is not the part of Gods will we can fully understand but that the Bible isnt fully understandable, as in all of Gods wills expressed in it arent decypherable.As I said, the only way that I claim that I am possibly able to know God is through his own revalation. Ergo, the Bible. It doesn't necessarilly cover God's will in its entirety.
But the Bible surely contains some parts of God's will that are not accessible to us. After all, all we have as a basis for what god is/thinks/wills etc is the Bible, and yet we still speak of God's will as something unknown. That implies that the Bible is not the part of Gods will we can fully understand but that the Bible isnt fully understandable, as in all of Gods wills expressed in it arent decypherable.[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Yes. And even if one perfectly understands the Bible, one very well might never be able to understand God while on this earth, and if ever so, only through his will.
coolbeans90
As I said, the only way that I claim that I am possibly able to know God is through his own revalation. Ergo, the Bible. It doesn't necessarilly cover God's will in its entirety.
The revelation of his will though (the part we know through the Bible) doesnt mean its understanadable/decypherable or what have you. You speak as if the part of God's will within the Bible is the one we can surely understand (based on the wording "revelation" which doesnt grant anything essentially) and that the only non understandable part of his will is the one that is not in the Bible.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But there are many types of bases one can have. They can have an inference, they can have an interpretation. But they dont have to have either of those. Like I explained several times, I have been in situations where I had to disagree with an opinion (my disagreement would be my thesis right?) while not having my own formed opinion on the subject.Teenaged
You would have enough of an opinion on the subject to reject an opinion on it.
Alright, I'm out for now. Will be back later.
"Enough of an opinion" is another vague comment that is worse that semantics deployed on dictionary definitions.Sorry if vague, I'm trying to word this better. My command of the English language is admittedly rather weak. The point is, there is to a degree an opinion on the matter. Inference. Contradictory to a claim that you do not have an opinion on the matter.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="GD-1369211121"]What would they accomplish by burning Korans...? Burning the Quran is no more offensive than building a mosque on ground zero. Well, it's a good thing no one is building a mosque on Ground Zero.Aw man.:(
GD-1369211121
"Enough of an opinion" is another vague comment that is worse that semantics deployed on dictionary definitions.[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
You would have enough of an opinion on the subject to reject an opinion on it.
Alright, I'm out for now. Will be back later.
coolbeans90
Sorry if vague, I'm trying to word this better. My command of the English language is admittedly rather weak. The point is, there is to a degree an opinion on the matter. Inference. Contradictory to a claim that you do not have an opinion on the matter.
No the change of the wording doesnt do away with its vagueness. The slippery slopes I deployed were also based on "to a degree" rationales and still you found them far-fetched. Why should I not do this now, too?[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]But the Bible surely contains some parts of God's will that are not accessible to us. After all, all we have as a basis for what god is/thinks/wills etc is the Bible, and yet we still speak of God's will as something unknown. That implies that the Bible is not the part of Gods will we can fully understand but that the Bible isnt fully understandable, as in all of Gods wills expressed in it arent decypherable.Teenaged
As I said, the only way that I claim that I am possibly able to know God is through his own revalation. Ergo, the Bible. It doesn't necessarilly cover God's will in its entirety.
The revelation of his will though (the part we know through the Bible) doesnt mean its understanadable/decypherable or what have you. You speak as if the part of God's will within the Bible is the one we can surely understand (based on the wording "revelation" which doesnt grant anything essentially) and that the only non understandable part of his will is the one that is not in the Bible.I agree that it isn't necessarily understandable. But one can try to to understand it, and accept that such understandings are inherently limited.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]"Enough of an opinion" is another vague comment that is worse that semantics deployed on dictionary definitions.Teenaged
Sorry if vague, I'm trying to word this better. My command of the English language is admittedly rather weak. The point is, there is to a degree an opinion on the matter. Inference. Contradictory to a claim that you do not have an opinion on the matter.
No the change of the wording doesnt do away with its vagueness. The slippery slopes I deployed were also based on "to a degree" rationales and still you found them far-fetched. Why should I not do this now, too?Because the "degree" is not relevant. You have an opinion on the subject if you have a basis to reject a claim on the subject. The entire basis of rejection of the opinion would be an opinion on the subject.
I agree that it isn't necessarily understandable. But one can try to to understand it, and accept that such understandings are inherently limited.coolbeans90That part (bold and italicised) is analogous to what I discarded earlier: self-criticism, self-deprecation or in other words meta-gnostic (I am not sure about the word in english) abilities. Those do not invalidate the feeling-basis for an endeavour in interpreting scripture: the confidence that one can understand it.
No the change of the wording doesnt do away with its vagueness. The slippery slopes I deployed were also based on "to a degree" rationales and still you found them far-fetched. Why should I not do this now, too?[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Sorry if vague, I'm trying to word this better. My command of the English language is admittedly rather weak. The point is, there is to a degree an opinion on the matter. Inference. Contradictory to a claim that you do not have an opinion on the matter.
coolbeans90
Because the "degree" is not relevant. You have an opinion on the subject if you have a basis to reject a claim on the subject. The entire basis of rejection of the opinion would be an opinion on the subject.
If its not relevant then why do you bring it up? Or do you mean it is only irrelevant in my slippery slopes? If so why do you believe that?[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]No the change of the wording doesnt do away with its vagueness. The slippery slopes I deployed were also based on "to a degree" rationales and still you found them far-fetched. Why should I not do this now, too?Teenaged
Because the "degree" is not relevant. You have an opinion on the subject if you have a basis to reject a claim on the subject. The entire basis of rejection of the opinion would be an opinion on the subject.
If its not relevant then why do you bring it up? Or do you mean it is only irrelevant in my slippery slopes? If so why do you believe that?I was referring to the degree of which one has an opinion of a subject. The opinion on the subject is sufficient enough basis on the subject to reject another opinion. Thus the rejection of the opinion, is an opinion. To claim that one hasn't an opinion on the matter while having an opinion on the subject is contradictory.
I suppose that I should have just stated the opinion with the word "degree." Basically like this "an opinion is required on the subject to have a basis for disagreeing with another opinion on the subject. Otherwise, there is no basis. "
If its not relevant then why do you bring it up? Or do you mean it is only irrelevant in my slippery slopes? If so why do you believe that?[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Because the "degree" is not relevant. You have an opinion on the subject if you have a basis to reject a claim on the subject. The entire basis of rejection of the opinion would be an opinion on the subject.
coolbeans90
I was referring to the degree of which one has an opinion of a subject. The opinion on the subject is sufficient enough basis on the subject to reject another opinion. Thus the rejection of the opinion, is an opinion. To claim that one hasn't an opinion on the matter while having an opinion on the subject is contradictory.
I suppose that I should have just stated the opinion with the word "degree." Basically like this "an opinion is required on the subject to have a basis for disagreeing with another opinion on the subject. Otherwise, there is no basis. "
Why is it irrelevant? Do you know how many things I can equate by saying "thing x, is actually y to some degree, but that degree no matter how small, it still matters and therefore it is y"?[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]If its not relevant then why do you bring it up? Or do you mean it is only irrelevant in my slippery slopes? If so why do you believe that?Teenaged
I was referring to the degree of which one has an opinion of a subject. The opinion on the subject is sufficient enough basis on the subject to reject another opinion. Thus the rejection of the opinion, is an opinion. To claim that one hasn't an opinion on the matter while having an opinion on the subject is contradictory.
I suppose that I should have just stated the opinion with the word "degree." Basically like this "an opinion is required on the subject to have a basis for disagreeing with another opinion on the subject. Otherwise, there is no basis. "
Why is it irrelevant? Do you know how many things I can equate by saying "thing x, is actually y to some degree, but that degree no matter how small, it still matters and therefore it is y"?Because the qualitative, not quantitative properties of 'y' are the topic of discussion. The quality of 'y' being an opinion, and as such, contradicts another statement which states that what they stated isn't 'y.'
Why is it irrelevant? Do you know how many things I can equate by saying "thing x, is actually y to some degree, but that degree no matter how small, it still matters and therefore it is y"?[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I was referring to the degree of which one has an opinion of a subject. The opinion on the subject is sufficient enough basis on the subject to reject another opinion. Thus the rejection of the opinion, is an opinion. To claim that one hasn't an opinion on the matter while having an opinion on the subject is contradictory.
I suppose that I should have just stated the opinion with the word "degree." Basically like this "an opinion is required on the subject to have a basis for disagreeing with another opinion on the subject. Otherwise, there is no basis. "
coolbeans90
Because the qualitative, not quantitative properties of 'y' are what is being discussed. The quality of 'y' being an opinion, and as such, contradicts another statement which states that what they stated isn't 'y.'
When you mention "to a degree" you bring in quantity as well. "Quantity" in the sense of how "far" x is from y in terms of meaning. Just because x and y share qualities, by no means does that mean that they are they same or even that we can disregard whatever "distance" there is between them.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Why is it irrelevant? Do you know how many things I can equate by saying "thing x, is actually y to some degree, but that degree no matter how small, it still matters and therefore it is y"?Teenaged
Because the qualitative, not quantitative properties of 'y' are what is being discussed. The quality of 'y' being an opinion, and as such, contradicts another statement which states that what they stated isn't 'y.'
When you mention "to a degree" you bring in quantity as well. "Quantity" in the sense of how "far" x is from y in terms of meaning. Just because x and y share qualities, by no means does that mean that they are they same or even that we can disregard whatever "distance" there is between them.Which is why I discarded "to a degree" a few posts back as irrelevant, and should not have been included in my posts. When post is 'y,' and the person says such post is not 'y', there is contradiction, no matter the quantity of 'y.'
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]I wonder, if I threatened to burn 200 bibles would the media even show up?sSubZerOo
Perhaps if you claimed to be a Muslim out to "destroy" Christianity.
Did he really say that? I mean when they asked him he said he was protesting against extremist Muslim's.. Not Islam as a whole.. Now regardless of how ridiuclous his logic is, the point still stands..
Sure.When you mention "to a degree" you bring in quantity as well. "Quantity" in the sense of how "far" x is from y in terms of meaning. Just because x and y share qualities, by no means does that mean that they are they same or even that we can disregard whatever "distance" there is between them.[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Because the qualitative, not quantitative properties of 'y' are what is being discussed. The quality of 'y' being an opinion, and as such, contradicts another statement which states that what they stated isn't 'y.'
coolbeans90
Which is why I discarded "to a degree" a few posts back as irrelevant, and should not have been included in my posts. When post is 'y,' and the person says such post is not 'y', there is contradiction, no matter the quantity of 'y.'
You misrepresent the situation: Post is x, others say its y, and writer of the post denies its y because its x. Others feel like saying x = y because they equate them based exactly on the "to a degree" argument so I dont see how you can withdraw it and still insist on your point. Where x = not a formed opinion, and y = a formed opinion[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]When you mention "to a degree" you bring in quantity as well. "Quantity" in the sense of how "far" x is from y in terms of meaning. Just because x and y share qualities, by no means does that mean that they are they same or even that we can disregard whatever "distance" there is between them.Teenaged
Which is why I discarded "to a degree" a few posts back as irrelevant, and should not have been included in my posts. When post is 'y,' and the person says such post is not 'y', there is contradiction, no matter the quantity of 'y.'
You misrepresent the situation: Post is x, others say its y, and writer of the post denies its y because its x. Others feel like saying x = y because they equate them based exactly on the "to a degree" argument so I dont see how you can withdraw it and still insist on your point. Where x = not a formed opinion, and y = a formed opinionIt was a formed opinion. He stated a position on an opinion. Such is either based on the subject (requiring opinion) or not. (ignorance) Regardless, quantity is irrelevant.
It was a formed opinion. He stated a position on an opinion. Such is either based on the subject (requiring opinion) or not. (ignorance) Regardless, quantity is irrelevant.coolbeans90Like I mentioned earlier in this very thread, an opinion on an opinion does not imply an opinion about the thing the opposed opinion is all about. Thats the opinion we are looking for. If you think quantity is irrelevant and you revoke your "to a degree" argument, then you concede that x and y are not equatable; or specifically, that "enough of an opinion (whatever that means)" =/= "a formed opinion", "having an opinion on the text" =/= having an interpretation of the text" and so on.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]It was a formed opinion. He stated a position on an opinion. Such is either based on the subject (requiring opinion) or not. (ignorance) Regardless, quantity is irrelevant.TeenagedLike I mentioned earlier in this very thread, an opinion on an opinion does not imply an opinion about the thing the opposed opinion is all about. Thats the opinion we are looking for. If you think quantity is irrelevant and you revoke your "to a degree" argument, then you concede that x and y are not equatable; or specifically, that "enough of an opinion (whatever that means)" =/= "a formed opinion", "having an opinion on the text" =/= having an interpretation of the text" and so on.
Irrelevant. One has an opinion on part of the subject as the basis for the opinion on the opinion. That is all that is being discussed. By extension making his opinion on the opinion an opinion. He claimed the opinion wasn't such.
Understanding what the text says requires explanation, interpretation, extrapolation. Otherwise one doesn't know what the text says. And if one rejects what another person says what the text says, they either have an opinion on what the text says, or they are making an opinion on what the text says in spite of ignorance. Having made the same points repeatedly, I am done with this thread. Have a good evening.
Like I mentioned earlier in this very thread, an opinion on an opinion does not imply an opinion about the thing the opposed opinion is all about. Thats the opinion we are looking for. If you think quantity is irrelevant and you revoke your "to a degree" argument, then you concede that x and y are not equatable; or specifically, that "enough of an opinion (whatever that means)" =/= "a formed opinion", "having an opinion on the text" =/= having an interpretation of the text" and so on.[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]It was a formed opinion. He stated a position on an opinion. Such is either based on the subject (requiring opinion) or not. (ignorance) Regardless, quantity is irrelevant.coolbeans90
Irrelevant. One has an opinion on part of the subject as the basis for the opinion on the opinion. That is all that is being discussed. By extension making his opinion on the opinion an opinion. He claimed the opinion wasn't such.
Not irrelevant at all. In order for you to be able to support that Ninja's opinion is an inference on the text or an interpretation of it, that exactly the type of opinion we are looking for. Right now, that you have withdrawn your "to a degree" argument you try to equate what you tried previously to equate with that argument simply by saying "its irrelevant".[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Like I mentioned earlier in this very thread, an opinion on an opinion does not imply an opinion about the thing the opposed opinion is all about. Thats the opinion we are looking for. If you think quantity is irrelevant and you revoke your "to a degree" argument, then you concede that x and y are not equatable; or specifically, that "enough of an opinion (whatever that means)" =/= "a formed opinion", "having an opinion on the text" =/= having an interpretation of the text" and so on.Teenaged
Irrelevant. One has an opinion on part of the subject as the basis for the opinion on the opinion. That is all that is being discussed. By extension making his opinion on the opinion an opinion. He claimed the opinion wasn't such.
Not irrelevant at all. In order for you to be able to support that Ninja's opinion is an inference on the text or an interpretation of it, that exactly the type of opinion we are looking for. Right now, that you have withdrawn your "to a degree" argument you try to equate what you tried previously to equate with that argument simply by saying "its irrelevant".The argument is unchanged. One can have an opinion on parts of a subject, or on the whole of the subject. Whether one has a wholly formed opinion on exactly what the passage means is irrelevant as what they are basing their rejection of an opinion on may only relate to part of the subject. One can have a less than wholly formed opinion, but it is still an opinion which was used as a rejection of the opinion, and by extension making the statement that an opinion isn't correct an opinion. For instance, say x is an integer. I don't know what x is, but I have concluded that x isn't 5. My opinion that x isn't 5 is based upon something with relation to some problem. I don't have a fully formed opinion on what x is, but my opinion that x isn't 5 is an opinion. With respect to x not being 5 as an opinion, anything beyond believing x to not be 5 is irrelevant. As I said in the previous post, I am here.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment