Posted by wylie715 on 7/13/2018 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/13/2018 10:12:00 AM (view original):
wylie obviously posts here for no reason other than to try to be a pain in the *ss. He's really no different than Bracco - never really even trying to contribute anything other than chaos and/or annoyance. Probably time to treat him like the troll he has become.

all3, you have said some not very nice things about me, but comparing me to Bracco is going too far! I demand an apology!!!

You and Bracco do share the same political views to be fair.

solid contribution............

Anybody paying attention to the POTUS trip this week?

Got caught lying in the final press conference with PM May this morning.
His face even turned all red and he began to stammer..........leaned way over the podium with a sheepish grin at PM May...............
Claimed he didn't say what he had said about PM May the night before (on tape!!--you can find it on the internet and listen for yourself!!) and then She (PM May) pointed out the reporter to him who was IN the audience. It would have been funny IF it was somebody else's President, not ours!

Captain Jackass at work in Europe.
An unmitigated disaster in the making...........
Better pray HARD for him you believers and apologists...........he'll need all the help he can get.

After watching the Peter Strozk debacle I am frankly embarrassed for both parties and the country as a whole. I am Equally embarrassed for the biased news networks.

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:14:00 PM (view original):
I think I get all these opinions about the meaning of an opinion.............after all, we've been around this loop before here..........

Except for one.
Some claim an "opinion" can't be wrong.......... I think that claim is based on the fact that it's just an opinion thus it "can't be wrong".......

Someone who believes that way please explain to dumb old me............how were the humans who believed the Earth was flat NOT wrong?
They were obviously wrong, no? The Earth is not flat. That's fact. Thus the "opinion" held by so many humans at the time was incorrect. WRONG.

Seems to dumb old me that their shared opinions on the Earth's flatness was WRONG. A wrong opinion.

Can somebody help me?
Should be easier than getting me to support Repugnants from the "right".............

Until you have proof it is an opinion. Once you garner proof it’s a fact. If my opinion in 2001 was Tom Brady was the steal of the draft it’s just that. After seeing his career we can agree that the opinion became a fact.

If I argue that Tom Brady was the most handsome player drafted in 2001, it is just an opinion because that is really subjective.

Thx for trying Boris. But that ain't helpful. Sure it's an opinion BEFORE facts come to light and disprove the opinion......... but after the "proof" is revealed (thru the facts appearance) then that opinion is /was WRONG. Thus an opinion can damn sure be wrong......... no?

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:25:00 PM (view original):
After watching the Peter Strozk debacle I am frankly embarrassed for both parties and the country as a whole. I am Equally embarrassed for the biased news networks.

THAT I agree with. Clearly that circus had absolutely NOTHING to do with actually finding any truth or revealing any new information.
It should NEVER have been held. Any hearing necessary should have been done behind closed doors (they did one of those with the dude) or in Court!

Some of those "so-called leaders" completely debased themselves--------on both sides of the aisle------that dude from Texas (Gomert) should be punched right in the mouth by Strozok's wife!! I bet he'd go down whining like a little girl.
Real tough guy......... when nobody can get to him!

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:14:00 PM (view original):
I think I get all these opinions about the meaning of an opinion.............after all, we've been around this loop before here..........

Except for one.
Some claim an "opinion" can't be wrong.......... I think that claim is based on the fact that it's just an opinion thus it "can't be wrong".......

Someone who believes that way please explain to dumb old me............how were the humans who believed the Earth was flat NOT wrong?
They were obviously wrong, no? The Earth is not flat. That's fact. Thus the "opinion" held by so many humans at the time was incorrect. WRONG.

Seems to dumb old me that their shared opinions on the Earth's flatness was WRONG. A wrong opinion.

Can somebody help me?
Should be easier than getting me to support Repugnants from the "right".............

Until you have proof it is an opinion. Once you garner proof it’s a fact. If my opinion in 2001 was Tom Brady was the steal of the draft it’s just that. After seeing his career we can agree that the opinion became a fact.

If I argue that Tom Brady was the most handsome player drafted in 2001, it is just an opinion because that is really subjective.

Thx for trying Boris. But that ain't helpful. Sure it's an opinion BEFORE facts come to light and disprove the opinion......... but after the "proof" is revealed (thru the facts appearance) then that opinion is /was WRONG. Thus an opinion can damn sure be wrong......... no?

Once an opinion converts to a fact it is no longer an opinion. Like I think we re having a boy. But if in the end we end up having a girl then I have facts and my opinion is no longer an opinion.

An opinion is something that cannot be proven or disproven by factual data at the time it is given.

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:25:00 PM (view original):
After watching the Peter Strozk debacle I am frankly embarrassed for both parties and the country as a whole. I am Equally embarrassed for the biased news networks.

THAT I agree with. Clearly that circus had absolutely NOTHING to do with actually finding any truth or revealing any new information.
It should NEVER have been held. Any hearing necessary should have been done behind closed doors (they did one of those with the dude) or in Court!

Some of those "so-called leaders" completely debased themselves--------on both sides of the aisle------that dude from Texas (Gomert) should be punched right in the mouth by Strozok's wife!! I bet he'd go down whining like a little girl.
Real tough guy......... when nobody can get to him!

Yep it was one giant circus of nincompoops. On both sides.

Obviously Strozk was not unbiased but It’s not as if he was the sole investigator on these cases. Wow our politicians are dumb. Bad luck should go into politics. He d fit right in.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Parsing the meaning of opinion and distinguishing opinions from judgments from facts from truths from matters of taste is a deep philosophical well that I doubt any of us are equipped to properly dive into.

For example, if the one and only acceptable definition of opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, and I say, "raw onions are disgusting," that isn't an opinion. I've eaten raw onions and I have grounds sufficient to be completely certain that they are disgusting. You may think the exact opposite and neither of us are wrong and neither of us are expressing an opinion.

Another example: Mike Trout is a better offensive player than Alcides Escobar. That isn't an opinion either. I have sufficient grounds to say that with certainty.

But, I'm not a car mechanic. If my car is acting up and I say, "I think it needs new spark plugs," that is an opinion. I do not have sufficient grounds to produce complete certainty that the plugs are the problem. And it's an opinion that could be wrong.

I'll just post this again along with the definition wylie copied from the dictionary: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The fact that person A lacks grounds to produce complete certainty doesn't mean those grounds don't exist, making the opinion wrong.

Going back to a car as an example. If I hear a noise coming from the engine, I might form the opinion that there's a knock in one of the cylinders. That's an opinion. I don't have grounds to produce certainty. If the noise is actually an exhaust leak, my opinion is wrong. It was wrong the moment I formed it. The fact that I didn't know I was wrong doesn't change the fact that my opinion was always wrong.

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/13/2018 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/13/2018 10:12:00 AM (view original):
wylie obviously posts here for no reason other than to try to be a pain in the *ss. He's really no different than Bracco - never really even trying to contribute anything other than chaos and/or annoyance. Probably time to treat him like the troll he has become.

all3, you have said some not very nice things about me, but comparing me to Bracco is going too far! I demand an apology!!!

You and Bracco do share the same political views to be fair.

No, we don't. He is much more left leaning than I am.

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:14:00 PM (view original):
I think I get all these opinions about the meaning of an opinion.............after all, we've been around this loop before here..........

Except for one.
Some claim an "opinion" can't be wrong.......... I think that claim is based on the fact that it's just an opinion thus it "can't be wrong".......

Someone who believes that way please explain to dumb old me............how were the humans who believed the Earth was flat NOT wrong?
They were obviously wrong, no? The Earth is not flat. That's fact. Thus the "opinion" held by so many humans at the time was incorrect. WRONG.

Seems to dumb old me that their shared opinions on the Earth's flatness was WRONG. A wrong opinion.

Can somebody help me?
Should be easier than getting me to support Repugnants from the "right".............

Until you have proof it is an opinion. Once you garner proof it’s a fact. If my opinion in 2001 was Tom Brady was the steal of the draft it’s just that. After seeing his career we can agree that the opinion became a fact.

If I argue that Tom Brady was the most handsome player drafted in 2001, it is just an opinion because that is really subjective.

Thx for trying Boris. But that ain't helpful. Sure it's an opinion BEFORE facts come to light and disprove the opinion......... but after the "proof" is revealed (thru the facts appearance) then that opinion is /was WRONG. Thus an opinion can damn sure be wrong......... no?

No. Once it has been proven wrong, it is no longer an opinion.

Again, when you form an opinion and it turns out you were wrong, the opinion was wrong from the start.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Parsing the meaning of opinion and distinguishing opinions from judgments from facts from truths from matters of taste is a deep philosophical well that I doubt any of us are equipped to properly dive into.

For example, if the one and only acceptable definition of opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, and I say, "raw onions are disgusting," that isn't an opinion. I've eaten raw onions and I have grounds sufficient to be completely certain that they are disgusting. You may think the exact opposite and neither of us are wrong and neither of us are expressing an opinion.

Another example: Mike Trout is a better offensive player than Alcides Escobar. That isn't an opinion either. I have sufficient grounds to say that with certainty.

But, I'm not a car mechanic. If my car is acting up and I say, "I think it needs new spark plugs," that is an opinion. I do not have sufficient grounds to produce complete certainty that the plugs are the problem. And it's an opinion that could be wrong.

I'll just post this again along with the definition wylie copied from the dictionary: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The fact that person A lacks grounds to produce complete certainty doesn't mean those grounds don't exist, making the opinion wrong.

Going back to a car as an example. If I hear a noise coming from the engine, I might form the opinion that there's a knock in one of the cylinders. That's an opinion. I don't have grounds to produce certainty. If the noise is actually an exhaust leak, my opinion is wrong. It was wrong the moment I formed it. The fact that I didn't know I was wrong doesn't change the fact that my opinion was always wrong.

I don't think I care to argue about this any more after this. Yes, you can say that Trout is a better offensive player than Escobar. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Anyone who were to tell you different is an idiot or does not know anything about baseball. If you were to say that Trout is the best offensive player in the game, that is an opinion. It all depends on your definition of best and your definition of offensive player.
As far as the raw onions being disgusting thing, if you say raw onions are disgusting to me, that is not an opinion. You are just talking about specifically how you feel about raw onions. It is a fact that raw onions are disgusting to you. Unless, you specifically say that raw onions are disgusting to you, its just an opinion, because obviously you can not prove or disprove that everybody feels that way about raw onions.

But anyway, I say opinions can not be wrong. You can say whatever you want. I am not gonna argue it anymore. I'm sure that will make all3 happy.

OK, last comment on this. Someone who does not know anything about baseball would have "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" regarding a Trout/Escobar comparison. So if they did conclude the Escobar is better, it would be an opinion. And it would be wrong.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):
OK, last comment on this. Someone who does not know anything about baseball would have "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" regarding a Trout/Escobar comparison. So if they did conclude the Escobar is better, it would be an opinion. And it would be wrong.

No, Alexander. Because there are stats that show Trout is better. If my opinion is that the Earth is larger than the Sun then it’s not an opinIon but a false statement. If an opinion can be disproven by facts it is no longer an opinion but a false statement instead.

Nice try though.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Again, when you form an opinion and it turns out you were wrong, the opinion was wrong from the start.

What part of an opinion cannot be wrong do you not understand?