…that key GOP figures will exploit the death of Ronald Reagan for all it’s worth in order to seal the election. I’m looking ahead to the GOP National convention and am suggesting the following odds:
A minute of silence will be called for: 1-1.
Chances that Bush will mention Reagan one minute into his speech: 5-1.
Two minutes into his speech: 3-2.
Three minutes into his speech: 3-1.
That a key speaker will exhort his comrades to win this election “for the Gipper”: 1-1.
That it will be stated Reagan would have approved of this country’s direction: 2-1.
That if Reagan were there, he would be urging you to vote for Bush: 1-1.
PAD
• 
“Opinions can’t be wrong”
Only if you equate them with feelings. If you take the definition of opinion as being a judgment that one accepts as truth but lacks sufficient proof to rule out dispute, then of course they most certainly can be wrong.
I suppose one advantage of your definition is that you don’t ever have to admit having been wrong, which may be important to some, but evidence of insecurity to others.
I can admit when I’m wrong.
I’m just not wrong
What’s the longest thread ever on this site? Are we close?
As far as the whole overpopulation thing, sure, the planet might be able to support a lot more humans, but could it still support everything else? Especially with our current “culture”? Very few of us actually live “in tune” with nature. We tend to be very wasteful and produce much much more waste material (not just turds, plastics and garbage, pollutants and whatnot) then we recycle. We also would need to be cautious of what happens if we totally destroy an entire ecosystem, what kind of chain reaction could that cause? I believe eveything is pretty much interconnected somehow (especially as pertaining to the weather. If the ice caps melt whether from a natural heat increase or related to greenhouse stuff, the water levels will rise and become much colder, effectively destroying the current warm currents in the ocean that cause weather, all leading to a new ice age. At least, that’s what the Discovery Channel told me), and if you start removing too many pieces, everything will collapse.
Alright, I’ll stop babbling since this wasn’t the topic of the thread and it wasn’t even the most recent discussion within this thread.
Monkeys.
Wait, I think I’ll babble some more:
Posted by Deano at June 11, 2004 07:12 PM
Okay i get it now ,the shrouded one has leaped inside of Bladestar and is using him as a way to keep spewing venom for no apparent reason and blasting anyone who disagrees with him.Must not be complete because there is no caps lock,and the spelling is correct for the most part.Of course it could be that Bladestar is just being an áššhølë.Thats just my opinion….I could be wrong.
Posted by Bladestar at June 11, 2004 07:35 PM
Opinions can’t be wrong Deano
So, uh, Bladestar, are you saying Deano is right and that you are either possessed by “it” or are being an áššhølë? Just curious, not looking for any verbal sparring here.
Monkeys.
Toby, truth is what you make it. Fact is what is.
Opinions are like áššhølëš, and some posters here are their opinions.
‘Opinions can’t be wrong Deano”
Nonsense. Of course they can. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of Americans that hanging people accused of witchcraft was a good idea. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the Church that the Earth orbited the sun, and that opinion was disputed at one’s extreme peril. Once upon a time, it was medical opinion that illness was caused by evil spirits, and that the best way to cure such illnesses was to bleed the patient to get the spirits out.
People believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. It’s not true. Everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. People can have an opinion about any dámņëd thing they want, but they can also be flat wrong by any measurable means. To say that all opinions are equally valid and none can be wrong is just ludicrous.
PAD
“Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the Church that the Earth orbited the sun, and that opinion was disputed at one’s extreme peril.”
I would never presume to debate such an opinion, PAD – especially since it’s borne out by the evidence.
I believe you mean the idea Bruno was burned for arguing against – that the sun, and indeed all the heavenly bodies, revolve around the Earth, the obvious center of all that is… 🙂
“Actually, young trees, in order to grow, actualy take more carbon dioxide from the air than old, huge trees. So they actually slow down/prevent global warming.”
Umm… how are you measuring this. Looking it up in various biology texts and such… Trees remove Carbon Dioxide through their leaves. The more leaves the more CO2 is removed from the air. Larger, older trees have more leaves than young saplings. Saplings may be growing but older trees continue to grow throughout their lifespan. So older/larger trees take more (based on leaf surface area alone) CO2 out of the atmosphere than their saplings. Unless your comparing different species or saplings to old dead trees then there is really no way to come up with that conclusion. So as fast as CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising,loosing older larger trees is bad for the enviroment.
As for everyone living in texas… well if everyone living in MegaCity Texas… what exactly is considered overpopulation? If say a few more states were at that level? Or the Entire South West was at that density? Or 90% of the U.S. is as populated as our hypothetical Texas? Is that overpopulation? Is that something to be strived for?
‘Opinions can’t be wrong Deano”
Nonsense. Of course they can. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of Americans that hanging people accused of witchcraft was a good idea. Once upon a time, it was the opinion of the Church that the Earth orbited the sun, and that opinion was disputed at one’s extreme peril. Once upon a time, it was medical opinion that illness was caused by evil spirits, and that the best way to cure such illnesses was to bleed the patient to get the spirits out.
It helps to distinguish between things referred to opinions. The latter two things you refer to as “opinions” are factual claims, which can easily be falsified. (Or proven, in one case, but we know what you meant.)
True opinions are harder, if not impossible, to falsify. The first one you present, on the merits of slaying witches, is a value judgment. I’m not a moral relativist, so I have no compunctions about rejecting it outright, but strtictly speaking it has no truth value. Analytically it’s a preference statement, no different from “chocolate tastes better than vanilla” and “Slipknot is the worst band in human history.” Although again, I’m not a relativist, so I think those two opinions are more defensible than capital punishment for witchcraft.
I disagree with one of your points, David. I believe it can be shown that hanging people accused of witchcraft is, indeed, a bad idea.
Assuming the accused party is not guilty, you have just executed an innocent person.
Assuming the accused party is guilty, would he/she not use his/her magic powers to escape? Cf. Robert Asprin’s “Another Fine Myth” (or the graphic-novel version, “Myth Adventures”), when Skeeve and Aahz have been captured while disguised as two local con artists. The villagers want to beat them to death, but the military intervenes – insisting they be hung, in accordance with the law. Aahz, being temporarily deprived of his powers, simply uses his amazing strong Perver- er, Pervect neck muscles to avoid strangling; Skeeve, meanwhile, simply levitates at the end of his rope. When everyone is satisfied that they must be dead by now, their bodies are thrown on a midden heap, from whence they proceed with their adventures…
Similarly, it would seem that a true witch would simply use his/her powers to – well – not die, at least by strangulation.
No, I think the only reliable way to rid yourself of a witch is the tried-and-true burning at the stake!
(Or, of course, a wood chipper…) 🙂
Geez ,i was trying to be funny,Bladestar was being a bit testy and i was trying to break the negative waves.The opinion thing was actually stolen from Dennis Miller (when he was still funny).
I do feel UNINFORMED opinions like a certain unmentionable persons’can be wrong.Of course i never have this problem ,because my opinions are never wrong:)( thats a joke ladies and gentlemen)
“Toby, truth is what you make it. Fact is what is.
Opinions are like áššhølëš, and some posters here are their opinions.”-Bladestar
Hm. If truth is what you make it, isn’t it an opinion then? Does not truth require fact? I always believed that fact and truth were essentially the same thing, but I guess that’s an opinion.
Monkeys.
Truth and fact can be different, many fools truly believed that it was the truth that earth was flat or that “witches” should be burnt at the stake, but the Facts (the Earth IS round) are totally different…
PAD,
Yeah, so what? As long as he beats whatever lunatic the Dems run.
Oh, some of us in the center (Nazis are right wing, not Republicans… actually Dems are closer to Nazis. Hmmm) would like to apologize for the idiots who use racial names. Take pride in your ancestory. But you’re still wrong…
“Truth and fact can be different, many fools truly believed that it was the truth that earth was flat”
Bladestar, it may have been the truth that they believed that, but what they believed was not the truth. Just like it was a fact that they believed that, but what they believed was not a fact. Both the truth and fact are objective.
Nope. Fact can exist without people, truth cannot.
Toby:
“I always believed that fact and truth were essentially the same thing, but I guess that’s an opinion.”
Bladestar:
“Truth and fact can be different, many fools truly believed that it was the truth that earth was flat or that “witches” should be burnt at the stake, but the Facts (the Earth IS round) are totally different…”
Ben Lesar:
“Bladestar, it may have been the truth that they believed that, but what they believed was not the truth. Just like it was a fact that they believed that, but what they believed was not a fact. Both the truth and fact are objective.”
Ok, somehow I hate to do this. Bladestar is correct, although his approach leaves much to be desired. ‘Truth’ and ‘Fact’ are not synonymous.
‘Truth’ is more a philosophical matter and is reliant upon ones perspective whereas ‘Fact’ is indisputable. A murder trial is a good example. Witnesses are called to testify as to what they have seen. When one witness describes the killer as wearing a red shirt (seen only from behind) and a second witness describes the killer as wearing a blue shirt (seen only from the front) is one of them lying or telling the truth? Or are they both telling the truth from their own points of view (perspective)? Only when a third witness testifies that the killer wore a red and blue shirt (reliant upon his/her perspective which allowed a view of both colors) do we realize that the ‘fact’ is that the killer wore a multicolored shirt and both of the first two witnesses told the ‘truth.’ The trouble is that the first two witnesses did not have all of the facts, thus their conflicting testimony.
Toby and Mr. Lesar, I haven’t seen posts from either of you for a while. ‘Tis good to see that you both are still around.
Side note:
I was acquitted and I have gotten rid of that shirt. 😉
Salutations,
Mitch
Ah, I see, said the blind man to his deaf son, pìššìņg into the wind, it all comes back to me now.
Seriously, thank you for the clarifications, I understand now.
Monkeys.
Hence the term in a court of law…
“The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…”
Because it’s quite easy otherwise to give factually correct information which doesn’t accurately reflect the truth.
John
“…it’s quite easy otherwise to give factually
correct information which doesn’t accurately
reflect the truth.”
Like it says on a recent “Simpsons” T-shirt:
“Facts can be used to prove anything.”
David Bjorlin: True opinions are harder, if not impossible, to falsify. The first one you present, on the merits of slaying witches, is a value judgment. I’m not a moral relativist, so I have no compunctions about rejecting it outright, but strtictly speaking it has no truth value. Analytically it’s a preference statement, no different from “chocolate tastes better than vanilla” and “Slipknot is the worst band in human history.
Luigi Novi: And who says a preference statement cannot be an opinion? Why must something only be one or the other?
Some people opined that slavery was a good idea, that communism is a good idea, that we shouldn’t have Separation of Church and state, and the gay marriage should be illegal, and so forth. I can say that I think those statements are wrong. Period. Nothing wrong with that.
war mongers agains hate!! how funny!
How many of the mutitude of Reagan supporters actually voted for him when he ran for president? Or were even old enough to have voted then?
I was old enough, I was there, I feel sorry for his family and loved ones as I would for any decent human.. But a great president? He was no LBJ,,, who was no JFK,,, who was no FDR. It seems history’s memory is a faulty as Reagan’s was.
It’s a sign of the time Armii,
As america and it’s people’s has slid downhill, so are the standards to which we apply the label “Greatness”.
Reagan was no JFK, FDR, or even a Lincoln or Washington, but it today’s world and political climate, would any of them gotten selected?
(Elected is a joke, Gore won the vote of the people, but the nonsensical Electoral college buulshit pìššëd all over that. Amazing how Bush loves to preach that Democracy is what makes america great but we don’t actually practice it…)
You can’t be 40680 serious?!?