So, some people believe X, and other people believe Y, and X and Y are mutually exclusive. The people who believe X think that they (the people who believe X) are right; and the people who believe Y believe that they (the people who believe Y) are right.
But how do you know which one is right? Because if you believe X is right, well, then, you believe X is right; but if you believe Y than you believe Y, and in both situations you think you are right. Given that every person thinks that he or she is right; and that you believe what you believe; and that we only see our perceptions; how do we know if anything we think is right? Your stance (X or Y) on the matter indicates nothing about the truth of the matter; because if you believe Y you believe Y and if you believe X you believe X.
Given that nobody thinks that he or she is wrong; how do we know who is wrong?
What if we're all crazy and it turns out that black is white and up is down; that being a jerkface is actually better than being nice to people; there's no way to know what is right or what is wrong because you only know what you know!
What if shoelaces are actually fishes and sidewalks are the mouths of invisible yo-yos??!!?!
but you can't know for sure who is right or wrong, you can only form your own opinions based on your experiences and believe whatever you think is true
you know i thought Doomsday was actually really sad when i watched it, but seeing it over and over again in gif format accompanied by increasingly hyperbolic expressions of anguish has completely desensitized me to it
but you can't know for sure who is right or wrong, you can only form your own opinions based on your experiences and believe whatever you think is true
Yeah, but everyone forms his or her own opinions and believes whatever he or she thinks is true.
What makes me better than anyone else? Why arbitrarily favor one opinion just because you think it is right?
Nobody has a right to call another person wrong, then.
I could think whatever I wanted and it would be true to me and wouldn't be able to distinguish it from truth. I'd have no more credibility than anyone. I could say whatever I wanted and it would be right to me, and since my view is just as good or bad as anyone's, it would be essentially true; and then wait doesn't that mean that I get to choose my own reality?
I have no right to call, say, Chris-Chan a jerkface because I only see my perception..
@Aliroz But generally, you don't form opinions arbitrarily, you base them on your own experiences of the world. So you're not arbitrarily favouring opinions, you're favouring those that the evidence of your senses incline you towards. It's not a perfect measurement; it's always possible you might be wrong.
Arguing, if done rationally, can help you to arrive at the truth, or something closer to it. Suppose Alice holds opinion X because of evidence α, and Bob holds opinion Y because of evidence β. Bob might say, 'X can't be true because β, therefore Y.' Alice might respond, 'But Y can't be true either, because α.' They have learned that neither X nor Y is true, so they might both now hold opinion Z, which takes both pieces of evidence into consideration.
@Aliroz But generally, you don't form opinions arbitrarily, you base them on your own experiences of the world. So you're not arbitrarily favouring opinions, you're favouring those that the evidence of your senses incline you towards. It's not a perfect measurement; it's always possible you might be wrong.
Arguing, if done rationally, can help you to arrive at the truth, or something closer to it. Suppose Alice holds opinion X because of evidence α, and Bob holds opinion Y because of evidence β. Bob might say, 'X can't be true because β, therefore Y.' Alice might respond, 'But Y can't be true either, because α.' They have learned that neither X nor Y is true, so they might both now hold opinion Z, which takes both pieces of evidence into consideration.
Just because you say it doesn't mean you're right. And that doesn't take into account how we see nothing but our perception. We don't know anything except what we know. Wait, what if my thinking in my last post is wrong? I only think that there's nothing I think except what I think. I only think that I believe what I believe. Maybe I don't believe what I believe and so the certainty that people believe what they believe and that nobody sees anything outside of their perception is wrong. By its own basis in a certainty (that there isn't objective stuff we see, just perception), it's based in a certainty and so it's a paradox.
The uncertainty is an uncertainty, so it's not proven, so it doesn't have to be that way.
Maybe is isn't when is is because is is not is amoeba?
Whoa. I just confused myself back to lucidity there, or at least, my regular level of confusion.
Okay, it helped a lot that you guys disagreed with me, thus recalibrating reality to prove me wrong.
Imagine, what if I'd won that argument? Ugh. Maybe it's best that what I think is wrong.
So, ability-to-make-me-be-wrong-all-the-time, when it comes to disappointing me, you never disappoint.
It is widely assumed that Wild Arms 2 has a plot. The real question, however, is what that plot is, as it becomes incomprehensible 2/3 of the way through.
Okay, it helped a lot that you guys disagreed with me, thus recalibrating reality to prove me wrong.
Imagine, what if I'd won that argument? Ugh. Maybe it's best that what I think is wrong.
So, ability-to-make-me-be-wrong-all-the-time, when it comes to disappointing me, you never disappoint.
ok seriously stop this
i can't talk to you because unless i agree absolutely with every detail of what you say you go into victim mode
When I disagree with you, you think that you're right and I think that I'm right. Your view (that you're right and I'm wrong) is not on the same page as my view (that I'm right and you're wrong). If I say that you're right and I'm wrong; then we agree and we're on the same page.
But then you say things like 'i am wrong about everything but some things are more important than right or wrong, and you guys disagree with me about everything, and i wish you guys were hypocrites or held unpopular opinions so i could relish being right for a change' and so on.
Well i mean, i don't think the hate of Thompson was, necessarily. He was someone who posed a genuine threat to their hobby, or at least sought to pose a genuine threat to it. The hostility was to be expected.
This is a point Bob Chipman made, but gamers have gotten used to being on the defensive because of people like Thompson, which leads to unfairly lashing out at people like Anita Sarkeesian, who, as much as I disagree with the specifics of her approach, is only trying to help.
Thompson filed a law suit for $40 million against Facebook in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 29, 2009. Thompson claimed that the social networking site had caused him great harm and distress by not removing angry postings made by users in several Facebook groups.
Comments
People who have that view tend to not accept people forcing their views on other people.
In fact, many people who are against forcing your views on other people would like to impose that conviction upon reality.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
But how do you know which one is right? Because if you believe X is right, well, then, you believe X is right; but if you believe Y than you believe Y, and in both situations you think you are right. Given that every person thinks that he or she is right; and that you believe what you believe; and that we only see our perceptions; how do we know if anything we think is right? Your stance (X or Y) on the matter indicates nothing about the truth of the matter; because if you believe Y you believe Y and if you believe X you believe X.
Given that nobody thinks that he or she is wrong; how do we know who is wrong?
What if we're all crazy and it turns out that black is white and up is down; that being a jerkface is actually better than being nice to people; there's no way to know what is right or what is wrong because you only know what you know!
What if shoelaces are actually fishes and sidewalks are the mouths of invisible yo-yos??!!?!
the sign is arbitrary
Prepare to Diorama.
What makes me better than anyone else? Why arbitrarily favor one opinion just because you think it is right?
Nobody has a right to call another person wrong, then.
I could think whatever I wanted and it would be true to me and wouldn't be able to distinguish it from truth. I'd have no more credibility than anyone. I could say whatever I wanted and it would be right to me, and since my view is just as good or bad as anyone's, it would be essentially true; and then wait doesn't that mean that I get to choose my own reality?
I have no right to call, say, Chris-Chan a jerkface because I only see my perception..
So why argue, then?
What even is? Is anything? Is is?
Amoeba?
in Black Candles i mean
Arguing, if done rationally, can help you to arrive at the truth, or something closer to it. Suppose Alice holds opinion X because of evidence α, and Bob holds opinion Y because of evidence β. Bob might say, 'X can't be true because β, therefore Y.' Alice might respond, 'But Y can't be true either, because α.' They have learned that neither X nor Y is true, so they might both now hold opinion Z, which takes both pieces of evidence into consideration.
And that doesn't take into account how we see nothing but our perception. We don't know anything except what we know.
Wait, what if my thinking in my last post is wrong? I only think that there's nothing I think except what I think. I only think that I believe what I believe. Maybe I don't believe what I believe and so the certainty that people believe what they believe and that nobody sees anything outside of their perception is wrong. By its own basis in a certainty (that there isn't objective stuff we see, just perception), it's based in a certainty and so it's a paradox.
The uncertainty is an uncertainty, so it's not proven, so it doesn't have to be that way.
Maybe is isn't when is is because is is not is amoeba?
Whoa. I just confused myself back to lucidity there, or at least, my regular level of confusion.
Okay, it helped a lot that you guys disagreed with me, thus recalibrating reality to prove me wrong.
Imagine, what if I'd won that argument? Ugh. Maybe it's best that what I think is wrong.
So, ability-to-make-me-be-wrong-all-the-time, when it comes to disappointing me, you never disappoint.
Excuse me? That's literally the fundamental basis of what i said!
I apologize for spazzing out, there.
They seem to be handling the two moms thing pretty well, even though if it were up to me I would've taken the opportunity earlier in the series.
ok seriously stop this
i can't talk to you because unless i agree absolutely with every detail of what you say you go into victim mode
You've won. You're right.
And i wasn't aware that we were competing.
Fourty H's
Lex Luthor stole fifty cakes. That's as many as five tens. And that's terrible.
Let It Go
Let It Snow
Let You Down
If I say that you're right and I'm wrong; then we agree and we're on the same page.
Sarkeesian isn't trying to get things banned, she's just giving her opinions.
I'm inclined to agree. this doesn't help
Stating the obvious, i know.