"Wrong" vs "Censorship"

Reactions
460 69 2
#37
Well we are now.




Are you saying that you can't change your mind after saying something is "Wrong"?

Because you really should.

And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? (now we;re really discussing philosophy)
Uh, no. I basically said the exact opposite of that.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#38
Uh, no. I basically said the exact opposite of that.
No, what you said was that Disagree can mean something else besides Wrong, and then said that something else left open the possibility to change one's mind.

Maybe that's not what you wanted to say, but that's how it came out.
 
Reactions
1,955 620 2
#41
Wtf are you guys even arguing about? Been going on for like 3 pages.
@lien thinks to hit the disagree button is an attempt to censor him, or disagree = telling someone they're wrong = censorship. Others disagree.

This is probably the most lighthearted this thread has been since the election.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#42
@lien thinks to hit the disagree button is an attempt to censor him, or disagree = telling someone they're wrong = censorship. Others disagree.

This is probably the most lighthearted this thread has been since the election.
And that's horrible in itself!
 
Reactions
460 69 2
#43
No, what you said was that Disagree can mean something else besides Wrong, and then said that something else left open the possibility to change one's mind.

Maybe that's not what you wanted to say, but that's how it came out.
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?










The answer is Yes.[DOUBLEPOST=1480914080,1480913880][/DOUBLEPOST]
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?










The answer is Yes.
Also, since it went over your head or you are just playing at being obtuse, I was really just taking a dig at your unwillingness to see the other side of the coin on this issue. Really, I cannot tell if you are just trolling or just don't know when to say "I see your point"
 
Reactions
1,955 620 2
#44
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?


The answer is Yes.[DOUBLEPOST=1480914080,1480913880][/DOUBLEPOST]
Also, since it went over your head or you are just playing at being obtuse, I was really just taking a dig at your unwillingness to see the other side of the coin on this issue. Really, I cannot tell if you are just trolling or just don't know when to say "I see your point"
Dude, give it up. I know you're MindDetective, but you're gonna need a proctologist's help to reach this mind and we just don't have one of those on-call.
 
Reactions
891 353 14
#45
So again, how do you disagree with something if it's "right"?
I seriously wonder whether you can't see the difference between "I disagree" and "(I think) you are wrong" or are just trolling at this point.

If you say "Queen was the greatest rock band ever", I can disagree - not because your opinion is wrong, but because I have another opinion (it's clearly the Beatles).
If you say "the USA has 72 states", I can disagree because you're just plain factually wrong (it's 53, right?).

Considering you did it while the post was just about one thing, i was kind of sure what you disagreed with.
Clearly not.
If you say "Queen is the greatest boy band in history", I can disagree because I think they're not the greatest, or because I disagree about labeling them as a "boy band". The two are different ways of disagreeing with you - and neither says you're factually wrong, because you didn't state a (supposed) fact, but an opinion.

Considering you did it while the post was just about one thing, i was kind of sure what you disagreed with.
Oh pls, like the people saying that actually cared about free speech, and weren't just pissed off that someone was criticising them. Everyone loves censorship, as long as it's them doing it.
That was the post as I disagreed with. You're giving your view that people who complain about free speech only did so because they can't stand critizism, and your view that "everyone loves censorship as long as it's them doing it". That's two - related - statements. Neither's a fact, both are opinions. The first, while I think you're overgeneralizing to everyone saying that, has some merit - some people most certainly do think that, though I think it's fair to assume a lot of people really just care about free speech. The second, as a blanket statement, is something I disagree with, and is really projecting.
I don't like censorship, even when it's "my side" doing it. On Belgian politics, I'm considered fairly right-wing, on American politics, fairly left-wing, because of the differences in political parties and talking points. I read more opinion articles I disagree with than ones I agree with - it's more useful, and it's more interesting, to see things from another perspective. And some of them I can classify as "crappy uninteresting prejudiced bile", and some is "an interesting take, a point of view I hadn't considered yet". Separating the two can be hard - especially if the person writing filth is a good writer and demagogue - but it's important and something our childrne realyl should get more training in. It's definitely not something I want in the hands of the government or popular vote or whatever to decide upon. If someone from "the other side" is writing crap, write an opposing piece explaining why and how it's junk. If they're writing something with a point - even one you disagree with - it's definitely something that hould be out there, adn perhaps you should engage in debate.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#46
I seriously wonder whether you can't see the difference between "I disagree" and "(I think) you are wrong" or are just trolling at this point.

If you say "Queen was the greatest rock band ever", I can disagree - not because your opinion is wrong, but because I have another opinion (it's clearly the Beatles).
If you say "the USA has 72 states", I can disagree because you're just plain factually wrong (it's 53, right?).

Ah, so when you say the Beatles are the greatest band, you're not saying that Queen isn't the greatest band... just that there's a better band. :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p



Clearly not.
If you say "Queen is the greatest boy band in history", I can disagree because I think they're not the greatest, or because I disagree about labeling them as a "boy band". The two are different ways of disagreeing with you - and neither says you're factually wrong, because you didn't state a (supposed) fact, but an opinion.
Ah, so you're saying i'm subjectively wrong, and that's not saying i'm wrong... heh. :p:p:p:p:p

What i'm saying is that it doesn't much matter for my original point if it was a subjective of factual "Wrong!" (even if my statement is falsifiable)



I think you're overgeneralizing
Finally.... took you damn long enough.

And it's really not a hard argument to make.


My rebuttal would be that of course i am, because when dealing with large groups you can't make any sweeping statements about all the members, but you can make some about trends within the group, and i always assume that to be implied when i make such an absolute statement (coz i'm not a Sith).



I think it's fair to assume a lot of people really just care about free speech
It's better to assume that most people are hypocrites most of the time, and the difference comes from how they react when you call them out on it. Some might admit infringing free speech, and apologise, while some might give a good reason why said speech shouldn't be allowed (i never said all censorship is bad btw, even 4chan nukes certain things).




I don't like censorship, even when it's "my side" doing it. On Belgian politics, I'm considered fairly right-wing, on American politics, fairly left-wing, because of the differences in political parties and talking points. I read more opinion articles I disagree with than ones I agree with - it's more useful, and it's more interesting, to see things from another perspective. And some of them I can classify as "crappy uninteresting prejudiced bile", and some is "an interesting take, a point of view I hadn't considered yet". Separating the two can be hard - especially if the person writing filth is a good writer and demagogue - but it's important and something our childrne realyl should get more training in. It's definitely not something I want in the hands of the government or popular vote or whatever to decide upon. If someone from "the other side" is writing crap, write an opposing piece explaining why and how it's junk. If they're writing something with a point - even one you disagree with - it's definitely something that hould be out there, adn perhaps you should engage in debate.

I agree with that.

But i will make a point about what i said not being necessarily about your "side" (because when you split ppl in two sides there's no way everyone agrees with most others on their side, they just agree even less with the other side), but even you yourself. And i could easily prove it by asking you if its ok that most forums censor hentai that depicts child porn. But then i'm just cheating to show i was technically right.



perhaps you should engage in debate.
Of course you should.

Which is why i said you just labelling the post, while not criticism, supports my point. Because you weren't really engaging in a debate about it, but just showing disagreement and moving on, which is based on the same "not wanting to deal with something" feeling some people take too far and then try to silence others (sure, you might say "projecting", but somehow i doubt none of you ever had that feeling, and it's harder to get over sometihng you don't admit doing imo). Sure, you might have wanted to come back to it, but it's not like i would know that when i made the edit (just like you assumed i was trying to shut down the discussion by the edit).

.....

CRAP... thank the gods for modern browsers, almost lost the whole thing to mouse bound Back buttons.[DOUBLEPOST=1480951959,1480951804][/DOUBLEPOST]
@lien thinks to hit the disagree button is an attempt to censor him, or disagree = telling someone they're wrong = censorship. Others disagree.
Yeah, it's not like i've been saying that the label can support my point without being censorship itself for the last two pages or anything. :rolleyes:
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#47
Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out :p :p :p :p :p Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators :p :p :p Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think Cubicism. Evil academia blocks out Time Cube site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the Cubic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite :rolleyes: You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android.
 
Reactions
479 88 1
#48
Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out :p :p :p :p :p Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators :p :p :p Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think Cubicism. Evil academia blocks out Time Cube site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the Cubic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite :rolleyes: You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android.

OH SHIT WE'VE BEEN HACKED
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#49
In what universe does that mean that you can change your mind in only those circumstances? Here is a logic problem for you:
If x, then y.
Can z also be y?
Problem is that the way you put the words together it comes off more like:

There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y. Sure, there no real logical rule that say you can't Y with X, but the structure of the sentence does hint towards that implication.

Which also allows room for the person rating disagree to be able to admit they do not know the actual, factual truth and can thus change their mind on the matter
But really, that was more of a semantics issue i brought up about your post.

The "And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? " was the actual argument.[DOUBLEPOST=1480952538,1480952445][/DOUBLEPOST]
Opposite Creation vs evil god entity. He who speaks, preaches, teaches, condones or practices SINGULARITY - an evil that equates DEATH by cancellation of universal OPPOSITES - hemispheres, sexes, seasons, races, temperatures, marriages and divided cell (the human Cubic who rotates a 4 corner stage family rotating metamorphic lifetime) - should have their evil lying tongue cut out :p :p :p :p :p Educators are lying bastards. -1 x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of+1 x +1 = +1and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres. Entity is death worship - for it cancels opposites. I have invested 30 years of my life and over 1/4 millions dollars researching Nature's 4 - simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth. Religious/Academic word taught singularity is contradicted as evil lies by the simple math of the Cube's Opposite Corners - the most perfect symmetry within the Universe. Academic SINGULARITY is a contradiction to the opposite sexes, the opposite hemispheres and to the universe of opposites that exist as a zero value existence. The academic taught singularity/entity is but poison fed the human populace - slow death. I can say that educators "eat shit" and they only cower and hide, doing nothing that will induce debate, that will indict them as evil. Americans will die SINGULARITY stupid, their brain lobotomized by EVIL educators :p :p :p Neither EARTH or HUMAN exist as entities, but opposites. Earth is composed of opposite hemispheres which rotate in opposite directions - equal to a zero value existence (plus & minus). As entity, the opposite hemispheres cancel out. Earth exist as 4 - 90 degree opposite corner quadrants, but not as a 360 degree circle. Earth is Cubic opposites, nothing as circle. A singularity inflicted scholar has not the mentality, freedom or guts to know that academia is a Trojan Horse mind control. Singularity brotherhood owns your brain, destroying your ability to think Cubicism. Evil academia blocks out Time Cube site and suppresses its discussion and debate. You are an educated singularity idiot who can stupidly deny Nature's Harmonic 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth, or even make parody of the Cubic Creation Principle - but your mental ability to comprehend thegreatest social and scientific discovery of all human existence has been lobotomized by the evil academic singularity bastards hired to destroy your ability to think opposite :rolleyes: You cannot comprehend Opposite Creation. Religous/academic taught singularity is the reduction of the human mind to android.

Well, as he said, we did end up debating philosophy now...
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#50
The "And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? " was the actual argument.
All human knowledge is paired with confidence points/intervals, because we're complicated. I think existing is better than not existing ceteris paribus, and am fairly confident in this being true. I think the law of universal gravitation is reliable, and am deeply confident about it. I think Murder By Death is the best indie rock band at the moment, but I am not very confident at all on this because I have not listened to (even) most indie rock out there at the moment (which is why it's an opinion I'm less likely to voice or defend).

"At least thinking it's true" before being able to hold an opinion is a hilariously high standard. A lot of valid opinion is based on inference and hypothesizing. A more reasonable standard (and that most people operate by, I think) is thinking that something is more likely than not, by whatever metrics the person values (evidence, authority, gut-feeling/truthiness, experience, ...).
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#51
Reactions
407 178 0
#52
Well i'm all for that, but "i think it's wrong, but i'm not sure" is still saying it's wrong, but leaving more room for your own failure.

If we're going to require 100% certainty of wrongness always, we can't really call anything Wrong! in the first place.
That makes little sense to me. Take this example:

You assert 'A', while I assert 'B'.
My own assessment of reality says 'not A' is 80% likely. Note that I believe 'B' as well as 'not A', but 'B' is something I'm not sure of (let's say 30%), since the solution space is not necessarily dichotomic. It's just the best candidate for truth, according to me, at the moment.
I say you are wrong. I'm fairly confident, and not sure.

Another example:
You assert 'A'.
I think 'not A' is 5 sigma, but have no better competing hypothesis because reality is complicated, and/or I have not formed a positive opinion on this particular topic.
I say you're wrong. I'm hilariously confident, and hopelessly unsure.
 
Reactions
460 69 2
#53
Problem is that the way you put the words together it comes off more like:

There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y. Sure, there no real logical rule that say you can't Y with X, but the structure of the sentence does hint towards that implication.

But really, that was more of a semantics issue i brought up about your post.
I hinted at nothing. That's you reading into it.

The "And how can you have an opinion if you don't at least think it's true? " was the actual argument.[DOUBLEPOST=1480952538,1480952445][/DOUBLEPOST]


Well, as he said, we did end up debating philosophy now...
And I have answered that repeatedly.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#54
That makes little sense to me. Take this example:

You assert 'A', while I assert 'B'.
My own assessment of reality says 'not A' is 80% likely. Note that I believe 'B' as well as 'not A', but 'B' is something I'm not sure of (let's say 30%), since the solution space is not necessarily dichotomic. It's just the best candidate for truth, according to me, at the moment.
I say you are wrong. I'm fairly confident, and not sure.

Another example:
You assert 'A'.
I think 'not A' is 5 sigma, but have no better competing hypothesis because reality is complicated, and/or I have not formed a positive opinion on this particular topic.
I say you're wrong. I'm hilariously confident, and hopelessly unsure.
Look, what i was saying is that the % don't really matter for my point, and that getting into it at that level changes the whole debate.

Sure, you can say someone is wrong with various degrees of certainty, but the whole thing started because there was no caveat about it, and just a label applied.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#56
I hinted at nothing. That's you reading into it.

Really? So you don't see how "There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y." implies you can't Y with X?




And I have answered that repeatedly.

Where you the one with the subjective vs factual thing?

Because that doesn't actually address the question, it simply quantifies different variations of thinking something is wrong.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#57
What, no vote for who wins in the fight between Walter Wrong and Charlie Censorship?
 
Reactions
460 69 2
#58
Really? So you don't see how "There's X, and then there's Z, and with Z you can Y." implies you can't Y with X?
It 100% logically does not do that, nor does it linguistically do that. That is you reading into it (still).





Where you the one with the subjective vs factual thing?

Because that doesn't actually address the question, it simply quantifies different variations of thinking something is wrong.
No, disagreeing subjectively doesn't equal thinking something is wrong. If you say, "I hate tacos", I can disagree, which doesn't mean "No, you don't hate tacos", it means, "I like tacos!" It means that my viewpoint is different, not that anything is factually incorrect.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#60
It 100% logically does not do that, nor does it linguistically do that. That is you reading into it (still).

Heh, see below. Well this is pointless now.



If you say, "I hate tacos", I can disagree, which doesn't mean "No, you don't hate tacos",
No, if you disagree with "I hate tacos" you're saying that you think i don't hate them, and i'm lying (to you or myself i guess).

Which makes your first quote funny... unless you have some sort of reading disability, then i'm just being an asshole i guess.


EDIT:

Ah, i see, you mean the disagree button can mean that.

Sorry, but you came in late, and didn't mention the label itself, you just said Wrong can mean other things.

Sure, you can disagree in that way with a preference, although i'd have used more descriptive words about the button etc if you wanted to make it clear.

But the statement i made wasn't one of preference, that you can label as having the opposite one.

I mean if i say The Sky is Blue, you can't claim you disagree because you like Orange better.
 
Last edited:

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#64
Now, tell me, what do you think I meant when I clicked that "disagree" button? :awesome:
I think the next person who makes a post about something other than trump in this thread today is going to have a time out.

Don't make me say it in a colored font :deadpool:
 
Reactions
1,955 620 2
#65
This post has been approved by the Gasbandit Ministry of Publication.

HEy, guys, it's the Real Zero Esc and I'm ta totes cool with anything Gas decides on this forum. :D
 
Reactions
460 69 2
#66
Heh, see below.





No, if you disagree with "I hate tacos" you're saying that you think i don't hate them, and i'm lying (to you or myself i guess).

Which makes your first quote funny... unless you have some sort of reading disability, then i'm just being an asshole i guess.
If I hit the disagree button when you espouse your opinion and you think that it can only (and likely) mean that I know your opinion better than you, then you are dense or trolling.
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#67
Look, what i was saying is that the % don't really matter for my point, and that getting into it at that level changes the whole debate.

Sure, you can say someone is wrong with various degrees of certainty, but the whole thing started because there was no caveat about it, and just a label applied.
Insecurities about the forum's shorthand do not change the nature of opinion. I think you are being asked to empathize with the forum audience that makes use of the #WRONG button.
 
Reactions
698 101 11
#68
If I hit the disagree button when you espouse your opinion and you think that it can only (and likely) mean that I know your opinion better than you, then you are dense or trolling.
See edit.

But, like i said, it wasn't an opinion about subjective tastes in things.

Like who Bubble said about the "Queen is the greatest band" thing, the semantics of it don't allow the "i prefer something else" interpretation because of how language logic works. (and now we're completely off the rails and i can no longer say anytihng to GB about moving this... THANKS OBAMA)[DOUBLEPOST=1480957338,1480957122][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think you are being asked to empathize with the forum audience that makes use of the #WRONG button.
Heh... it's not like i haven't used it myself... in both ways.

But we're already arguing about something else then what started this.

I never said he was WRONG to use it (notice that i avoided the disagree button for this), or that it was censorship, but that using it shows people are prone to the behaviour that's also behind censorship.

EDIT: Oh, and the funny thing is that originally Bubble said the edit about wrong was me trying to suppress the discussion.
 
Reactions
460 69 2
#69
I never said he was WRONG to use it (notice that i avoided the disagree button for this), or that it was censorship, but that using it shows people are prone to the behaviour that's also behind censorship.
I think you really need more evidence that he was trying to silence you. The disagree button simply isn't enough to go on for that.
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#70
I never said he was WRONG to use it (notice that i avoided the disagree button for this), or that it was censorship, but that using it shows people are prone to the behaviour that's also behind censorship.
There are many reasons why censorship is a tempting tool at every level of power, and reducing it to a single root urge/behavior (that you then identify in fellow commentators) seems akin to saying that defective punctuation is indicative of the same behavior that leads to rape (both are about ignoring boundaries and rules, after all).

Can't help but notice that you put your parentheses after your periods pretty often.
 
Top