<p>It is relevant to the actual topic. If you hadn’t been complaining about college the past several weeks and made it CLEAR that you weren’t even giving it a chance, your thread here would be MUCH MORE VALID than it is now. I can’t take anything you say about how much college sucks seriously because I know you have set out to hate it from the start.</p>
<p>College life is great, I think. There’s something for everyone, and you can always find your own little niche(s) if you look hard enough. My only issues probably involve the crappy housing and food available, the distance from everything, and the immature students that sometimes roam the campus. Also, it is not as easy to make CLOSE friends as it was in high school, for some reason. Sure, you have tons of great friends to eat out with and watch movies with, and even chat about philosophy with, but I have yet to run into a true close friend similar to the kind I found in high school. Maybe this will change. Or maybe the age of close friendships is over…it seems harder to find genuine people nowadays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, see my post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t run in here, insult the majority of this forum’s community, and then complain that we’re making this about YOU when you’re just supporting the marketplace of ideas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While true, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. This was the most constructive line in the OP’s post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very constructive, right? Well, don’t forget it came after a bunch of profanity and calling all college kids wild hooligans. But let’s just assume that we’ll base his entire post off of his ONE constructive line.</p>
<p>So let’s compare it to:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dunno, most of those seem like reasons to me, and for the iffy ones they’re at the very least JUSTIFICATIONS for their opinion, which is pretty close to a reason. I even left out my own post. And they’re no less constructive than the OP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but one person’s opinion is not greater than someone else’s for any reason. An opinion is an opinion, not matter how many “justifications” you have for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my “opinion” that gravity exists. My “justification” for this “opinion” is that stuff falls without any sort of push that I can see. I also have another “justification” for this “opinion” in that many many many many people agree with me, including professionals in the field. If you’re of the “opinion” that gravity doesn’t exist, I’m going to argue with you and tell you you’re wrong until you either give up talking about it or give sufficient “justification” for your “opinion”.</p>
<p>Exactly what do you consider a “reason” again? Since that’s what you claim you’re looking for.</p>
<p>People use the word “opinion” like a weapon to avoid having to provide reasonable justifications and still be “right.” It’s really not the brightest thing a person could do.</p>
<p>this thred is epic wins.</p>
<p>ps-im drunk</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my opinion that you do not know the difference between opinion and logical conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? You are trying to disprove to someone that the college “experience” (which cannot even be defined by the way) is not overrated. Yes I am trying to avoid your argument because it is a religion vs. science argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my opinion that it seems like you’ve never had a real debate with someone.</p>
<p>Everything in life is technically an opinion. There is no fundamental reason why all of our perceptions can’t be drastically different, or why everything you experience couldn’t just be a hallucination and you’re actually floating in some giant test tube right now.</p>
<p>So the best we have to go on is what we perceive. In some cases, our perceptions are shallow. In my perception, red is a nicer color than blue. This is shallow by definition because there’s little depth to the issue. I just find red more visually appealing. If you say that blue is a nicer color than red, then for me you are 100% wrong and I am 100% right. For you I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right.</p>
<p>As issues accumulate more depth they move further and further away from our society’s definition of “opinion”. An issue accumulates depth if one is able to provide reasoning for it. The more reasoning you can apply to an issue the more depth it gains and the further it moves away from an opinion and towards a “conclusion”. There is no such thing as a pure opinion or a pure conclusion in the practical world, there are only varying shades of gray. In the theoretical realm it is possible to reach pure conclusions with logic games. The most popular application of this is mathematics. Mathematics is purely theoretical with practical applications. The only other way to achieve a pure conclusion is to “cheat” and create a term whose definition is defined as a specific other thing (i.e. I define the term ‘snorp’ as a color that is the color of my hair. Therefore I can conclusively say that my hair is of the color snorp.)</p>
<p>Therefore, in the practical world, the universal validity of an idea is proportional to the abundance of reasoning (evidence) that can be applied to it. Ultimately, all evidence boils down to some form of reasoning.</p>
<p>Everything I just typed is implicitly understood in professional debate. Because of this, the only time you will hear an accomplished scholarly debater claim that something is merely an “opinion” is when presented with an assertion that has no evidence (reasoning) behind it. The word “opinion” in this case is effectively shorthand for “shallow perception”, but ultimately there is no defining bright line between such an “opinion” and a more “logical” assertion. It is also understood that no practical matter can ever be decided on with 100% conclusiveness.</p>
<p>Gravity is far from a logical conclusion. Much further than, say, the existence of atoms. As a matter of fact, as it stands, gravity is merely a description of a phenomenon that we can’t entirely explain yet. It’s fully possible that in the future our entire perception of “gravity” will be completely changed.</p>
<p>Summary: You’re just using words for the meanings you want them to have. Claiming that all of us saying that the college experience is beneficial and relevant are merely expressing our “opinions” and therefore cannot be deemed correct is merely a cop-out. The OP presented an argument that we disagree with (with evidence aka. reasoning). The mere fact that you consider the OP’s statement to be an “argument” and everyone else’s to be “insults” and “opinions” shows how biased you are.</p>
<p>That is all very nice but I did not come here to debate, just simply say that you cannot disprove the OP’s opinion. So instead of trying to do that why don’t you offer your own opinion (without resulting to personal attacks).</p>
<p>and I read that entire post and you contradict yourself, saying logic and reasoning don’t exist, yet you somehow used them. Don’t get fundamental here, we will have to start another thread.</p>
<p>Alright, here we go.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is philosophy. Do we exist, what is real, what is in our minds, is time real. This has no bearing on anything relevant to the original discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we live our lives based on our own realities that we experience. Reason is a word we used to distinguish what we believe to be reason, which is how our surroundings appear to logically (uh oh, this is a no-no word) behaving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are mixing two completely different things here.</p>
<p>“as an issue accumulates depth it arrives at a conclusion”. The fact that America went to Iraq is not wrong, or right. It will never be wrong or right. You can have an opinion on it and state as many so called justifications for it as you like, but it will still be your opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. But no. There are two different types of reasoning, one that is used for self-gain and one used to describe the world. The world is definite, reason used for self-gain is based on your own reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is NOT a debate forum. If someone posts a thread of “I’ve been having a rough time in college” the correct response is not “no you are wrong and you are having fun…and I have justifications to prove it”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahh gravity gravity. We might as well be talking about religion!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Summary- You are not debating, you are trying to disprove the OP. You try to go philosophical, but the fact will remain that you cannot disprove someone’s opinion. Any attempt you counter it with logic is only a counter-opinion. If you cannot see that then I feel sorry for you.</p>
<p>kisses</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Already have offered my own opinion. Check page 1. I don’t even really attack the OP in my post, I just contest what he/she says. I really don’t see how there’s something wrong with that.</p>
<p>I’m not allowed to point out things that I think are flawed and inaccurate with a post just because it’s an “opinion”? I didn’t know that opinions were beyond reproach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have loved to see the exact lines where I contradicted myself so that I could either correct the misunderstanding or edit the language in my statement to better express what I mean. I thought you were going to do that in your follow-up post but I don’t see it.</p>
<p>I never say that logic and reasoning don’t exist. In fact I explain that they’re the only things that can give an perception depth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost all disciplines are cross-applicable in a multitude. In this thread alone we’ve invoked chemistry, physics, biological and philosophical psychology, philosophy, rhetoric and English/grammar, logic, mathematics… And they all actually applied to the conversation in some way. In discussion, all knowledge is fair game. This isn’t like my Calculus class where we’re not allowed to use Physics to calculate acceleration and instead are limited only to differentials. If it’s applicable, it’s relevant. Maybe you’re right in that it’s not directly relevant to the OP but since this discussion has turned out to encompass much more than just the OP I don’t see how it’s not relevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sort of. I can’t pick out one individual phrase to disagree with but I think you’re giving it a spin that might not be entirely accurate. For all non-technical intents and purposes, reason and logic are mostly interchangeable. I specify non-technical because things computers can follow logic but we don’t say that they follow reason. The difference, however, is that reason is essentially the culmination of a huge amount of logic. A “reasonable” decision, for example, is ultimately just the result of thousands of logical connections we make. However, when we talk about “reasoning” we’re essentially talking about going through a logical process.</p>
<p>The reason I use “reason” instead of “logic” is because in our society “logic” has almost become a dirty word. The word “logic” is usually associated in some way with people who don’t know what they’re talking about because of how often people lord it over others in horribly flawed ways. I honestly can’t think of any non-technical uses of the word “logic” that don’t involved someone getting really ****ed off.</p>
<p>Realistically, since everyone’s perception is different, “reason” is merely the word we give to the motivations behind our actions. Someone who is acting erratically is said to have “no reason” and that their actions have “no rhyme or reason”. I employ it a bit more specifically, though, and I don’t think we have particularly different definitions. I just want to be clear of where I’m coming from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I said that it moves towards a conclusion, not that it arrives at a conclusion. The difference is key because I make a big point of the fact that no practical matter can ever reach a 100% conclusion.</p>
<p>Second, the example you give deals with morality, which for the most part lies decidedly outside of reason. I will admit that if there were anything in this world that came almost indistinguishably close to an “opinion” it would be morality.</p>
<p>So no, I don’t understand what two completely different things I’m mixing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Everything we experience, including the world, is filtered through our perception. I’m not sure what the distinction between the two types of reasoning you say exist is. I’m tempted to equate “self-gain” with “selfishness” but I don’t think that that is what you’re getting at. Elaborate on this further if you can.</p>
<p>That said, my statement was actually a bit confusing and I’d like to correct it. Rather than…</p>
<p>“Therefore, in the practical world, the universal validity of an idea is proportional to the abundance of reasoning (evidence) that can be applied to it.”</p>
<p>…I’d like it to be…</p>
<p>“Therefore, in the practical world, the universal validity of an idea is propotional to the abundance of non-conflicting reasoning (evidence) that can be applied to it.”</p>
<p>…because the abundance of reasoning that can be applied to it merely gives it depth, but the more this reasoning agrees with the other reasoning on the idea the more valid it becomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well you’re not wrong with these statements but this is a bit of a straw man. You’re right, this is not a debate forum, but does that mean debate cannot occur? And you’re right, the proper response to “I’ve been having a rough time in college,” is NOT “no you are wrong and you are having fun…and I have justifications to prove it.” But that situation is neither here nor there. The OP was more like, “Typical college life is ******** and everyone who enjoys it is a wild hooligan” and the response was more like, “No, I disagree, and these are the reasons it’s not ******** and here are the reasons why not everyone who enjoys it is a wild hooligan.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re the one who said that gravity was a logical conclusion. The way I incorporate it into my posts makes perfect sense. It’s a fact that we don’t entirely understand gravity at this point and that it’s merely the term for a phenomenon we observe. It’s also true that our perception of gravity could change drastically in the future. This argument hardly boils down to, “It’s mysterious and therefore can’t be explained” which is the only possible link I can think of for you to bring religion into this. But I admit that I think I’m completely missing your point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am debating (“a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints” --Dictionary.com). I’m debating with you and the OP. I don’t “try” to go philosophical, I DO go philosophical. You’re right, because I’m not omniscient, I can’t disprove someone’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean the opinion is legitimate. It would have been one thing if the OP said, “I feel like the whole college experience is ********. It seems like all anyone does is get drunk 3 out of 7 days a week.” But that’s not what the OP said. The OP basically made a bunch of inaccurate assertions and then covered his/her ass by tagging the word “opinion” to the top of it all.</p>
<p>Oh, and whether or not you believe I can or cannot see what your point is, I really don’t need you to feel sorry for me. It’s a waste of emotion on your part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sick. Trust me, no one wants to be giving me kisses right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, even if I wanted to argue with you, it would be impossible. You’re mixing a whole bunch of different ideas and trying to incorporate them into one concept but it does not make any sense. I am not going to address the other parts of your post because they are besides the point.</p>
<p>You do not get to chose whose opinion is legitimate or not. End of story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless you maintain that all opinions are legitimate, I don’t really get what you’re trying to say. Opinions can be based on flawed or incomplete information, or even completely fabricated out of no where on a whim. If I feel that someone else’s opinion is formed in a situation like this, there’s nothing wrong with me pointing out where I think the flaw is. Helping people think critically about their own thoughts and feelings is a good thing, not a bad one. Why do I believe what I believe? Would I believe something different if I had different information? These are the questions that we should all be asking ourselves, but most of us don’t, so I in effect ask these questions of other people.</p>
<p>The OP can believe whatever he/she wants, that’s his/her right. But it’s equally my right to challenge his belief if I so choose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you a bureaucrat? Just curious</p>
<p>Let’s say I like the Atlanta Braves. Let’s say I go to every single home game for my entire life. Let’s say the Braves have a terrible record. Even though to many other people they seem to be terrible, to me they are childhood heroes that I adore in my sleep.</p>
<p>Now you can point out to me that they have terrible averages, losing streaks, a terrible stadium, the players are former ex-convicts, and the coach killed his wife, but I am still going to love them just as much as I used to.</p>
<p>Let’s move on. Let’s say I believe in gay marriage. You tell me that two people with the same sexual organs are not able to sexually reproduce. You try to prove to me that it is wrong. Still, I believe in gay marriage.</p>
<p>You come on this forum and you come to this thread trying to disprove some guy’s opinion that the college experience is overrated, while throwing personal insults at him. His post was not written in the best manner but that does not come close to implying that his opinion is invalid. Then you try to maintain that your posts were, in fact, reasonable thought-out, critical responses, which is laughable after this one- <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063271730-post29.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063271730-post29.html</a>.</p>
<p>I am not sure where you’re going with this other than trying to be a nuisance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a bureaucrat, no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would definitely challenge your liking the Atlanta Braves. Well, I wouldn’t initially since I know nothing about Baseball or the Atlanta Braves in particular, but you gave me enough information to work with.</p>
<p>WHY do you like the Atlanta Braves? If it’s because you think they play well, then obviously that doesn’t work because as you’ve pointed out they have terrible averages, etc. If you like the people involved with the Braves, then as you’ve pointed out the players are ex-convicts, the coach killed his wife…</p>
<p>Saying that they’re “childhood heroes” is a great reason for nostalgia but a poor reason to like them currently, and I’d challenge that. If you end up saying you like the Braves because you “just do”, then the perception has become shallow to the point of becoming a color preference. At this point I wouldn’t try to convince you otherwise because you’ve admitted that there’s no REASONING behind your liking them so there’s nothing faulty it could be based on. Of course, that’s not what the OP said…he definitely gave reasons, and I and others thought those reasons were faulty so we said so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, a lot of gay marriage is a moral issue so that doesn’t really apply much. It looks like you’re looking at it from a practical point of view though but you narrow the focus too much. Marriage in today’s society is not about sexual reproduction, so the only concern isn’t whether or not they have compatible sexual organs. The main issue is the legal difference marriage brings as opposed to being unmarried. And with that in mind I’m all for gay marriage, so I wouldn’t argue try to “prove” your gay marriage views wrong, though if they were based on faulty assumptions I’d still correct them even though I agreed with the ultimate view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think you take this whole “disprove some guy’s opinion” thing too far. His opinion COULD be valid but it’s based on faulty assumptions, so I’m pointing out the faulty assumptions. If he reassessed his opinion but still came to the same conclusion based on different assumptions then I’d gladly take a second look.</p>
<p>And I have yet to insult him. The closest I’ve come to insulting him was telling him that HIS insults against other people were less valid than THEIR insults against him.</p>
<p>And…the post you linked does nothing make the idea that my posts are well thought-out and critical. My post starts out by questioning his reasoning behind calling us all douchy. Then I explain that the tone the OP gave off was one of a bitter ******, and that this wasn’t just my perception it was the perception of almost everyone who replied to the thread. Then I explain how and why his post was insulting to the majority of this board. Then I explain that he’s not invulnerable to criticism just because there are “lots of opinions on the issue” and I use the feminist analogy to back up my point. And then finally I respond to his response to my response that BMW’s attack on him was more valid than his attack on BMW.</p>
<p>Well thought-out and critical? I think so.</p>
<p>The closest post I’ve had to useless was my short one near the top of page three which was responding to his short and equally useless post.</p>
<p>And I’m not “trying to be a nuisance,” I just see a post, feel like responding to it, and so I do. I’m not “trying to be” anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are so thickheaded that there is no way you can even try to see the point that I am making. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go back and look at the post I linked. Think long and hard about the reasons you wrote it and what you intended to happen after you wrote it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not taking anything too far. If anything, you should have understood the point I was trying to make to you 10 posts back and stopped there. You’re just making a fool of yourself up to this point by replying to anything I write, even if it is non-conclusive.</p>
<p>If the republicans want to win an election, their sole objective is to win the admiration of the people, not to change the minds of the people who are democrats, even though it may be secondary. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I realize by now that you are not thinking when you write your posts, you just use the forums as a place to spill the garbage that is flowing out of your mind. Do not distress, you are human and it is human-nature to be a dumbass.</p>
<p>It’s my opinion that you’re the one making a fool of yourself. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about telling me where I went wrong in my understanding of what you posted? That might help make my head a little less thin.</p>
<p>Let’s start a tally of insults on your part. Tally = 1.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><em>Goes back</em></p>
<p>Hmm, I wrote it because I felt the OP was being unfair. I also thought that the OP had flawed thinking when he accused us all of “making it about him”. In addition, I thought his insult to BMW came off as a desperate burst of outrage that didn’t made less sense to the topic at hand than BMW’s original insult. I didn’t really intend much, but I hoped that if the OP read my post he’d reconsider his reasons behind what he said. I knew better than to expect it though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t say you were taking the conversation too far, I said that while initially the “disprove the OP’s opinion” thing sort of fit that it came time to make it clear that “disproving the OP’s opinion” doesn’t really describe what I’m doing with 100% accuracy.</p>
<p>And since we’re both quoting each other no matter what we write, I guess that makes us both fools. Takes two to argue.</p>
<p>Tally = 2</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tally = 3, but this was a big one so for any casual observers feel free to bump it up to something as high as 5 if you so wish.</p>
<p>For someone so big on not insulting other people, you sure are a hypocrite.</p>