That's what I said a few pages back when I read your postSo now we are resorting to this, huh? :lol:
That's what I said a few pages back when I read your postSo now we are resorting to this, huh? :lol:
LOL! It certainly is by the standard folks in this thread want to use. Although if you had a link to someone else's opinion, I think they'd let it slide.The periodic table of the elements: Opinion
Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.
Thanks.
I'll get right on that. First, I'd like you to post quotes where I made all three of those claims.Still waiting! :2wave:
So now we are resorting to this, huh? :lol:
Not finding them Glinda? :roll:I'll get right on that. First, I'd like you to post quotes where I made all three of those claims.
It's really up to you, but I wouldn't waste too much time looking.
Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.
Thanks.
I'll get right on that. First, I'd like you to post quotes where I made all three of those claims.
Is this the liberals? I know that they don't like america as much as regular people.
Not finding them Glinda? :roll:
Using your yardstick:
Gravity: Opinion
Newtonian Physics: Opinion
Evolution: Opinion
Big Bang: Opinion
The list goes on.
You're right, maybe there was just two:WTF? What "three claims?"
Here's your post from page 2:
Please post where I claimed:So, I ask again:
Taylor, please give us your definition of "regular people." When you're done with that, please explain how you "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people." Finally, please identify the scientific apparatus you used to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country.
Thanks.
My being absolutely adorable certainly makes up for it :mrgreen:Dear, you're nowhere near as clever as you believe yourself to be. :roll:
Please post where I claimed:
1) I "know that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people."
2) I used a scientific apparatus to verifiably rank how much someone loves their country (or where I said such a thing exists or should exist, or could exist)
That's right, theories aren't "fact" but "opinion" -- to use the jargon in this thread.Theories are backed by empirical data, though not proven.
I'm not trying to diminish theories. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to make sense of this "it's only an opinion" garbage that keeps getting tossed at me. As to your example above, both are "opinions," one just has a lot more credibility than the other because there's more evidence to back it up.Throw your computer off of your roof and explain why it falls. You can diminish Gravity as a theory, but it's not equal to saying I think Bush invaded Iraq for sand. Most science lends itself to empirical data.
Evidence for this theory?:2razz:I don't think you understand the difference between abstract concepts and the physical universe.
Exactly... theory = opinion
(using her/his yardstick)
That's right, theories aren't "fact" but "opinion" -- to use the jargon in this thread.
I'm not trying to diminish theories. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to make sense of this "it's only an opinion" garbage that keeps getting tossed at me. As to your example above, both are "opinions," one just has a lot more credibility than the other because there's more evidence to back it up.
I tried to discuss evidence and competing theories earlier, but the "opinion police" and the "semantics police" wouldn't have it.
Evidence for this theory?:2razz:
When the water is right up to your chin, you think it's best to dig a little deeper?
So if I'm not happy in the way you think I should be, I'm not really happy even though I think I'm happy?
(here, use my shovel... it's called logic, maybe you can fill in that hole a bit)
If you have such a measuring device in mind Glinda, let me know, but I don't think they exist.Good god, woman. I just gave you the freakin' link.
If you "KNOW that they [liberals] don't like america as much as regular people," you must have used some sort of measuring device, correct? What device did you use in order to come to your assertion that liberals "don't like america as much as regular people."
And? I don't see where you're going with this.Hypothetical constructs don't have physical properties that you can see, count, or measure.
I can accurately predict how fast something will fall to the earth.
And? I don't see where you're going with this.
If you have such a measuring device in mind Glinda, let me know, but I don't think they exist.
Theories aren't really "proven" they are good-enough explanations for what is observable. They are often disproven. Even scientific "laws" can be "disproven" (to an extent) for example, Newton's law of gravity is a damn good explanation, but it isn't "right." The more we learn, the greater the need to refine our theories.You will never ever be able to prove a hypothetical construct.
Theories have been, and will continue to be, proven.
If you were paying attention, I said as much wayyy back on page 13 when I explained to you the concept of hypothetical constructs.FINALLY. Jesus.
No we don't agree on this, we agree that your magic doo-hickey thingamabob doesn't exist. There are lots of ways to measure this, some more sophisticated than others. There are people who earn Ph.Ds studying such phenomena, who are able to make all sorts of predictions that aren't as reliable as those observed in the physical world, but are pretty reliable nonetheless.1. There is no way to measure who loves America more, conservatives or liberals. Making a claim that one group or the other cares more about their country is nothing more than an OPINION.
There are lots of ways to measure this. And, as I just got done discussing with it2002, all interpretations of data are OPINION (as you call it), there's just differing degrees of certainty.2. There is no way to measure who is happier, conservatives or liberals. Making a claim that one group or the other is happier is nothing more than an OPINION.
Theories aren't really "proven" they are good-enough explanations for what is observable. They are often disproven. Even scientific "laws" can be "disproven" (to an extent) for example, Newton's law of gravity is a damn good explanation, but it isn't "right." The more we learn, the greater the need to refine our theories.
That being said, of course I agree that you can't prove a hypothetical construct (hence the name).
Originally Posted by Crunch
When the water is right up to your chin, you think it's best to dig a little deeper?
So if I'm not happy in the way you think I should be, I'm not really happy even though I think I'm happy?
(here, use my shovel... it's called logic, maybe you can fill in that hole a bit)
Nice strawman, I never said, nor implied that.
I am saying that just because you think that you are happy, does not necessarily mean that you are. What my view of happiness is is totally independent, and only relates when applied to me.
However it is entirely possible for someone to think they are happy all of their lives, and then suddenly wake up one day and the entire facade comes crumbling down because they were just rationalizing that they were happy to protect their psyche.
I am not claiming that you are unhappy, it is very likely that you are in fact very happy. I am just saying that thinking one is happy does not equal being happy. Although related, emotions and thoughts are not the same entity. They both influence one another, yes; however a mind is quite able to deceive the individual to protect that individual.
so using logic (which I have been) thought does not equal emotion. happiness is subjective, thus varies from individual to individual, and also within the same individual as a product of circumstance. Being subjective it is not readily defined, and not being readily definable makes applying further logic to an undefined, subjective (and immeasurable) concept futile.