EDers

[Magically Musical Mexican]

MingTheCat1

Magically Musical Mexican

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

Actually this is juvenile. You discern everyday, all the time, opinions pushed forth without sources of sufficient evidence. You even form opinions of the same nature ( note: The above is your opinion and it's not supported ) constantly. The truth value for those opinions are found in more than physical evidence and written word; experience, thought process, etc. are all keys to finding the value of an opinion. If we are to really evaluate the above:

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

First, the underlined? False. We're discussing your opinion, I am taking you seriously, you posted a stupid picture.

Second, the bold is false; if you believe in any religion or ascribe to any philosophy under the sun it's not based in fact. Even fact-based philosophies are actually based on the assumption that Empirical Sciences are valid, thus baseless.

Third, that which is striked out should be; links actually hurt. The reason for this is because they are not unbiased most of the time and they are sought after with a very real dark intention ( being correct ), when it comes to say philosophical, ethical, cultural, etc. questions it's inappropriate. Yes, statistics are alright, sure and you can discuss the implications of the statistics, but many people attribute correlation to causation instantly ( it's natural, actually ) and what was once a good idea getting information actually poisons the well.

So, no, none of the above you presented is well based, obviously true, statements.

Was saying what the ED wanted to hear!
After lurking for a while I noticed those trends. So, I concluded that, arguments with a source are usually accepted more by the general populace. Why? I have no clue.

My point is the ED "sucks" because of that mentality. People continuously claim that their opinions are supported and so forth and so on and that externally unsupported opinions are "FAIL" or whatever you want to call it; of course that's an opinion, go figure.

The hypocrisy that arises from not knowing how to think is dangerous.

[X_Torric_X]

MingTheCat1

Magically Musical Mexican

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

Actually this is juvenile. You discern everyday, all the time, opinions pushed forth without sources of sufficient evidence. You even form opinions of the same nature ( note: The above is your opinion and it's not supported ) constantly. The truth value for those opinions are found in more than physical evidence and written word; experience, thought process, etc. are all keys to finding the value of an opinion. If we are to really evaluate the above:

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

First, the underlined? False. We're discussing your opinion, I am taking you seriously, you posted a stupid picture.

Second, the bold is false; if you believe in any religion or ascribe to any philosophy under the sun it's not based in fact. Even fact-based philosophies are actually based on the assumption that Empirical Sciences are valid, thus baseless.

Third, that which is striked out should be; links actually hurt. The reason for this is because they are not unbiased most of the time and they are sought after with a very real dark intention ( being correct ), when it comes to say philosophical, ethical, cultural, etc. questions it's inappropriate. Yes, statistics are alright, sure and you can discuss the implications of the statistics, but many people attribute correlation to causation instantly ( it's natural, actually ) and what was once a good idea getting information actually poisons the well.

So, no, none of the above you presented is well based, obviously true, statements.

Was saying what the ED wanted to hear!
After lurking for a while I noticed those trends. So, I concluded that, arguments with a source are usually accepted more by the general populace. Why? I have no clue.

Because without "credentials", "durr.. ura n00b!" It's obvious that in ED, one's own wisdom just isn't good enough.

[MingTheCat1]

Magically Musical Mexican

MingTheCat1

Magically Musical Mexican

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

Actually this is juvenile. You discern everyday, all the time, opinions pushed forth without sources of sufficient evidence. You even form opinions of the same nature ( note: The above is your opinion and it's not supported ) constantly. The truth value for those opinions are found in more than physical evidence and written word; experience, thought process, etc. are all keys to finding the value of an opinion. If we are to really evaluate the above:

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

First, the underlined? False. We're discussing your opinion, I am taking you seriously, you posted a stupid picture.

Second, the bold is false; if you believe in any religion or ascribe to any philosophy under the sun it's not based in fact. Even fact-based philosophies are actually based on the assumption that Empirical Sciences are valid, thus baseless.

Third, that which is striked out should be; links actually hurt. The reason for this is because they are not unbiased most of the time and they are sought after with a very real dark intention ( being correct ), when it comes to say philosophical, ethical, cultural, etc. questions it's inappropriate. Yes, statistics are alright, sure and you can discuss the implications of the statistics, but many people attribute correlation to causation instantly ( it's natural, actually ) and what was once a good idea getting information actually poisons the well.

So, no, none of the above you presented is well based, obviously true, statements.

Was saying what the ED wanted to hear!
After lurking for a while I noticed those trends. So, I concluded that, arguments with a source are usually accepted more by the general populace. Why? I have no clue.

My point is the ED "sucks" because of that mentality. People continuously claim that their opinions are supported and so forth and so on and that externally unsupported opinions are "FAIL" or whatever you want to call it; of course that's an opinion, go figure.

The hypocrisy that arises from not knowing how to think is dangerous.

Thats why I drew that picture. People are generally somewhat silly. As, opinions can not lead to truth if truth is hard facts. Opinions are biased. Does that make them bad? No. But you cant scream that you are true with no facts.

EXAMPLE: 2012 is the end of the world!!
Me: Erm... thats nice and all but... would you care to elaborate as to what makes you think this?
EXAMPLE: If you dont believe it you are stupid and ignorant and *rants*

Yes, I have been there before. That is why I no longer take the ED seriously.

Although I see truth as pure facts.

Example: 2+2=4

I see opinions as either facts (like that is what the person thinks, and it makes sense) or as made up mumbo jumbo (as the first example).

[MingTheCat1]

X_Torric_X

MingTheCat1

Magically Musical Mexican

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

Actually this is juvenile. You discern everyday, all the time, opinions pushed forth without sources of sufficient evidence. You even form opinions of the same nature ( note: The above is your opinion and it's not supported ) constantly. The truth value for those opinions are found in more than physical evidence and written word; experience, thought process, etc. are all keys to finding the value of an opinion. If we are to really evaluate the above:

MingTheCat1

Ok, no.
Your opinions should have some basis in fact to boost them up. If not, then no one will take you seriously. Links help!

First, the underlined? False. We're discussing your opinion, I am taking you seriously, you posted a stupid picture.

Second, the bold is false; if you believe in any religion or ascribe to any philosophy under the sun it's not based in fact. Even fact-based philosophies are actually based on the assumption that Empirical Sciences are valid, thus baseless.

Third, that which is striked out should be; links actually hurt. The reason for this is because they are not unbiased most of the time and they are sought after with a very real dark intention ( being correct ), when it comes to say philosophical, ethical, cultural, etc. questions it's inappropriate. Yes, statistics are alright, sure and you can discuss the implications of the statistics, but many people attribute correlation to causation instantly ( it's natural, actually ) and what was once a good idea getting information actually poisons the well.

So, no, none of the above you presented is well based, obviously true, statements.

Was saying what the ED wanted to hear!
After lurking for a while I noticed those trends. So, I concluded that, arguments with a source are usually accepted more by the general populace. Why? I have no clue.

Because without "credentials", "durr.. ura n00b!" It's obvious that in ED, one's own wisdom just isn't good enough.

Simply because one's own wisdom could either come from a 13 year old kid, or a 64 year old guy. We dont know.
And, through the internet, it is hard to tell if what someone is saying about themselves is fact or fiction.

[X_Torric_X]

MingTheCat1

Simply because one's own wisdom could either come from a 13 year old kid, or a 64 year old guy. We dont know.
And, through the internet, it is hard to tell if what someone is saying about themselves is fact or fiction.

Yeah, but alot of my topics derive from FOX news, so it should be common sense to most. But you get the ones that claim that FOX isn't real news (maybe because there's not enough dedication to Obama, I don't know). IMO, it's better than C-SPAN (IMO, aka - See, Stuck [up] President's a** Network).

[Stuch BSc]

I saw a fish in a thread once.

[MingTheCat1]

Stuch BSc

I saw a fish in a thread once.

But spam is spiced ham.
That would be called...
SPISH!

[Stuch BSc]

MingTheCat1

Stuch BSc

I saw a fish in a thread once.

But spam is spiced ham.
That would be called...
SPISH!

Threads need more spish.

[MingTheCat1]

Stuch BSc

MingTheCat1

Stuch BSc

I saw a fish in a thread once.

But spam is spiced ham.
That would be called...
SPISH!

Threads need more spish.

Am I doin it right Mister Stuch?

[Stuch BSc]

MingTheCat1

Am I doin it right Mister Stuch?

Mr. Stuch is my dad.

[MingTheCat1]

Stuch BSc

MingTheCat1

Am I doin it right Mister Stuch?

Mr. Stuch is my dad.

Okee Stuch Junior!

Lookee! I found a religious Spish!

[Ythan II]

Magically Musical Mexican

Not all trolls aim to offend.

This is exactly the opposite of correct.

[Ythan II]

Does posting in an old thread with more than the required number of posts get you the achievement?