{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/15/2013 2:33:44 AM
48
Because nothing says 'My opinion is right' like a group of like-minded people refusing to listen to the other side of an argument.
English
-
No. We just want to express our opinions away from people who would hate them.
-
Westborough Baptist?
-
So because someone joins a group, showing their love for a gaming console.. it means they're some sort of arrogant asshole?
-
No. Never said that. When somebody joins a group because they are tired of people having a different opinion than them, so they go to a community of people that only agree with them for the sole purpose of defending their opinion, they're being close minded and hypocritical.
-
So what are you doing on a community website? Other than gathering with a group of like minded individuals that support the same developer? Talk about hypocritical....
-
Edited by burritosenior: 6/17/2013 3:54:07 AM[quote]So what are you doing on a community website?[/quote]Talking with people that like video games about video games. Ouch. Kind of makes your post sound pretty stupid when I put it that way.
-
Actually you proved my point even further. Isolate yourself from people that don't enjoy video games much? You're not very good at this are you?
-
[quote]Isolate yourself from people that don't enjoy video games much? [/quote]It's a place to discuss games. Not a place dedicated to defending them to the death. Discussion by itself is unbiased, kid. Try again.
-
Discussion by itself is unbiased? What planet do you live on? If you are presenting a point or opinion in a discussion you already have bias. Otherwise you personally would be "discussing" both sides of the same coin. Please stop making this so easy.
-
[quote]Bias is an inclination of temperaments or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups. Anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view.[/quote] Burrito is right. Pure discussion is unbiased, but that's not to say it isn't opinionated. The whole point of a discussion is to bring validity to your point of view with the understanding that the other person isn't necessarily wrong. In a discussion of opinion, no one is right in the sense that the other is wrong and those that believe they can be absolutely right are biased. There are plenty of posts on this site that don't start with a discussion intent and have more of a debate intent, and that's when you should try to disprove someone, since you are discussing the matter at hand based on facts and using them to disprove the other person. It's knowing the difference that is difficult, and understanding the concept of each can be equally difficult and confusing. I'm not even sure I worded it in the best way possible, but it should make sense.
-
Like I said, the idea of discussion is neutral. But in practice not usually.
-
Edited by Khirna: 6/17/2013 5:11:45 AMNo, you said discussion is ruled by biased opinion, but it's not. True discussion have people hashing out their opinions on a topic. For example, someone might think Halo is bad, and list A, B, and C. The other might think Halo is amazing, and list D, E, and F. In a discussion, each opinion is respected and each person understands that the other isn't right or wrong on a grand scale of being right or wrong about the subject. And Wikipedia is a good source of information, as there are people actively reviewing the posts every day.
-
Take a look about three or four posts down. I did say that. But Burrito is only proving that A) he is lying about what he does here or B) that he doesn't grasp the practice of discussion. At no time does he recognize the validity of the OP's perspective. Therefore the discussion in this thread is biased. I said it before and I'll say it again, discussion is unbiased in name only in most cases. In practice not so much. Especially on the Internet, where the open-minded nature of both parties is hardly garunteed.
-
Wikipedia haha.
-
Christ, what are you- 12? Looking like a fool for an idiotic comment so you nitpick on semantics of something unrelated. [quote]If you are presenting a point or opinion in a discussion you already have bias. [/quote]False, and you'll learn more about that in school. [quote]Otherwise you personally would be "discussing" both sides of the same coin.[/quote]... *sigh* I can't believe I'm actually continuing this... OK kid, I'll try to explain. A person can have a bias, and when they support or detest something and discuss that something, often enough they show that bias. Going to a place to discuss that topic that a person may or may not have a bias on is not the same as going to a place that you know already supports or detests that thing. For instance, I came here to discuss Halo 2 back in 2006. I didn't come here to hear about how great Halo 2 was in everybody's opinion. I didn't come here to make sure everybody hated it. I came here to discuss it. That is not the same as going to a community that already hates Halo 2, isolating ones' self from the people that LIKE Halo 2, and having conversations to reinforce what we already believe. Discussion by itself is neutral.
-
28. And who is the one looking foolish getting so worked up? The idea of discussion may be unbiased, but discussion is rarely so. For example, somebody says, how did you like halo 2? The answer you would give would be biased as it is an opinion. So for a group to talk about something they like IS in fact biased, but also the basis for almost all free willed human interaction. You hang out with people that share similar views, marry someone with very similar views. So to call the OP pathetic for joining a group of folks that share his views is not only hypocritical, as you once again affirmed for me, it is also an attack on the most base sociological structure of our species. I'm already in school. And this was your lesson. Bot.
-
A few things. 1. Attempting to use big words and irrelevant 'larger purpose' points makes you look desperate, not smart. 2. [quote]The idea of discussion may be unbiased, but discussion is rarely so.[/quote]False. When both sides are represented, there isn't bias except in the individuals speaking. Unless you'd rather say 'there is bias in both directions,' in which case you're acting like a petulant child arguing over wording since my point would remain exactly the same in either case. 3.[quote]For example, somebody says, how did you like halo 2? The answer you would give would be biased as it is an opinion.[/quote]Yes. And then the other person would give their opinion if they disagreed. Because I wasn't in a place intentionally trying to silence that other side. Do you understand, yet? 4. [quote]So to call the OP pathetic for joining a group of folks that share his views is not only hypocritical, [/quote]I don't believe I ever called anyone 'pathetic.' To add, it isn't a matter of joining a group that shares views. It's a matter of it being hypocritical to accuse everybody that disagrees with you on something of trying to 'silence you' when you immediately turn around and refuse to hear a word from anybody that disagrees with you- effectively 'silencing' them. Basic logic. 5. [quote]it is also an attack on the most base sociological structure of our species.[/quote]See number 1.
-
So you're agreeing that parties in a discussion are full of bias? Then you turn around and say discussion is neutral. Do you not see the logical fallacy here? It doesn't matter how many sides are presented. A discussion is dripping with bias. You did call him pathetic, then went on to hurl insults at me in our discussion. Unbiased insults of course. Nobody said anything about his hypocrisy but look at it this way. You're a Jew being hounded during WWII. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url]'s are attempting to silence you. You become vocal about this and people of like minds come forward and agree with you. You decide to start a group to tell people how great Jews are. Do you think you're going to invite any [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] to join? I realize this is an extreme example but you seem like somebody who only sees extremes. And I mean that in the most unbiased way. :)
-
[quote]So you're agreeing that parties in a discussion are full of bias? Then you turn around and say discussion is neutral. Do you not see the logical fallacy here? It doesn't matter how many sides are presented. A discussion is dripping with bias.[/quote]*point* *Your head* [quote]You did call him pathetic, [/quote]Find me a post where I did that. Go on. I'll wait. [quote]Nobody said anything about his hypocrisy but look at it this way. You're a Jew being hounded during WWII. -godwinslaw!-'s are attempting to silence you. You become vocal about this and people of like minds come forward and agree with you. You decide to start a group to tell people how great Jews are. Do you think you're going to invite any -godwinslaw!- to join? I realize this is an extreme example but you seem like somebody who only sees extremes.[/quote]If you just seriously equated people that prefer a PS4 to an Xbox One to Hitler's party, then you have bigger issues than just being wrong in this thread. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a more desperate attempt to make an argument. I'll humor it just because it's fun watching what you come up with next: If there's no other possible way to share your opinion, then of course you can go to a place where you can do so. Your analogy here is irrelevant due to the fact that the Jewish people would not otherwise be able to 'share their opinions,' whereas here it is a matter of choice, not necessity.
-
So here we are "discussing" something and you refuse to see or hear the validity of my perspective. In your mind my points are effectively false as your mind is made up. Again, I thank you for proving my point once more. As for the pathetic thing. Maybe you didn't implicitly use the word, but silly and pathetic are more than a little similar. The OP expressed a clear reason as to why he couldn't post publicly to talk about the positives of his topic of choice. The mob mentality infringed on his discussion so he made a private group to do so. My analogy was perfectly relevant, albeit extreme as I stated, and the extremity of it forced you to understand. Sure it's a matter of choice if you want to put up with the nonsense. Or you could do exactly what he did. Your ranting on here is only driving the point further home that he can't even advertise a group supporting his choice without facing attacks. Again you fully support the OP's position with YOUR actions.
-
[quote]Again, I thank you for proving my point once more.[/quote]Repeating yourself doesn't make you any more right. [quote]As for the pathetic thing. Maybe you didn't implicitly use the word, but silly and pathetic are more than a little similar.[/quote]Chris Rock is silly. Chris Rock is not pathetic. Get over yourself, kid. THIS is pathetic, though. [quote]The OP expressed a clear reason as to why he couldn't post publicly to talk about the positives of his topic of choice. [/quote]No he didn't. He said why he THINKS he can't talk about things, when in reality he is more than welcome to. [quote]The mob mentality infringed on his discussion so he made a private group to do so. [/quote]Which he is more than welcome to. Still hypocritical, though. [quote] My analogy was perfectly relevant,[/quote]Apparently not or you would have 'countered' what I said instead of saying 'yuh-huh I am too right!' [quote]he can't even advertise a group supporting his choice without facing attacks.[/quote]... Right, because... [quote]Because nothing says 'My opinion is right' like a group of like-minded people refusing to listen to the other side of an argument.[/quote]... is an attack and stops people from being able to share their opinions. You're taking this way too personally, mate.
-
And that's where you left it? On your first post? There are many more where you attacked the OP and other members of the group. I didn't need to refute it. Selective editing only works for MSNBC. Mate. Not personally. Just knocking you down to size. Which clearly somebody needs to do.
-
[quote]There are many more where you attacked the OP and other members of the group.[/quote]Not once. [quote]I didn't need to refute it. Selective editing only works for MSNBC. Mate.[/quote]Every time you are called out for saying something silly, saying, 'see I told you I was right' does not make you right just because you make the claim while simultaneously avoiding anything that was previously said. You're welcome to keep thinking otherwise in that fantasy land within your head I assume you are happily floating around in, but please don't expect to be taken all that seriously when you persist in it.
-
Damn you're a fool. To think people actually respect you. You don't argue, you condescendingly talk at people. You have never addressed a point that was made, in fact you pick pieces of sentences out and entirely miss the point. Never in my life have I seen such hypocrisy. I almost feel bad for you as I can quite easily deduce what kind of personality you have and the abysmal social life that goes along with. As for the attacks, did you not say how silly it is for otter to blindly follow, let alone defend the One? How is that open minded and constitute a discussion? I'm done here. Thank you for showing BNet how superiorly foolish you are.
-
... Yet another post that goes for me instead of addressing anything that I said. That's quite childish, and quite rude. Also.. [quote]As for the attacks, did you not say how silly it is for otter to blindly follow, let alone defend[/quote]It is silly to blindly follow anything, and it is silly to blindly defend something because that means you are closing your mind to other alternatives and claiming to be right. Hence my first post- it's silly to make a group dedicated to the 'defense' of a console while claiming your opinions aren't being heard because that means you aren't strong enough in your opinions to withstand opposing viewpoints so you need to go hide and console each other. Silly, and by no means an 'attack' on somebody. Honestly, you need a lot tougher skin if you think that qualifies as attacking somebody. Grow up a bit there, mate, because there are far worse things.
