| User | Post |
Logos
Posts: 204/641 |
Originally posted by Kaijin Surohm
An opinion is an opinion. A statement of which you feel that you believe is right. And in such, you have no right to reject one's statement of anything, but you have the right to ignore it.
Mortality is the frail existance upon which human kind, and all othe other species live. It is one's knowledge of their limits of just how far they can go.
Immortaity is based on more then one idealogy. One idea of immortality is the though of living forever. Another idea of immortality is your thoughts and dreams are carried on through existance for all times.
By case of the second idea, someone who is never forgotten is theorietically immortal. Like, Thomas Jefferson, or Mozart. They're work will never be forgotten, and thus they can never be snuffed from existance.
Sorry, my mistake, I meant "immorality." If no one has the right to reject someone's opinion, then there would be no such thing as a debate, or an argument, more or less. One can only argue about something which is indefinite. |
Kaijin Surohm
Posts: 1409/1852 |
An opinion is an opinion. A statement of which you feel that you believe is right. And in such, you have no right to reject one's statement of anything, but you have the right to ignore it.
Mortality is the frail existance upon which human kind, and all othe other species live. It is one's knowledge of their limits of just how far they can go.
Immortaity is based on more then one idealogy. One idea of immortality is the though of living forever. Another idea of immortality is your thoughts and dreams are carried on through existance for all times.
By case of the second idea, someone who is never forgotten is theorietically immortal. Like, Thomas Jefferson, or Mozart. They're work will never be forgotten, and thus they can never be snuffed from existance. |
Logos
Posts: 201/641 |
There is no such thing as a "true" or "false" opinion, it's an impossibility. It's all up to an individual's or body's value judgement of an opinion. Again, "true" and "false" are positive statements. The following will better explain the concepts.
Positive science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Positive (social sciences))
Jump to: navigation, search
In the humanities and social sciences, the term positive is used in a number of ways.
One usage refers to analysis or theories which only attempt to describe how things are, as opposed to how they should be. In this sense, the opposite of positive is normative. An example would be positive, as opposed to normative, economic analysis. Positive statements are also often referred to as descriptive statements.
The term positive lies at the heart of one of the major epistemological debates in the humanities and social sciences. Positivists (in the humanities and social sciences) on the one hand, advocate a 'value-free' approach to the study of humanity that shares much in common with methods employed in the natural sciences. Positivists seek only to make objective descriptions of humanity and society without making normative judgements. In contrast non-positivists reject the notion that the methods of the natural sciences are adequate in explaining and describing humanity and society - this is primarily because of the 'meanings' that humans attach to their actions. They believe that it is not possible to be completely value-free in their study, as a person cannot stand totally removed from their place within space and history. Humanistic Sociology is an example of a post-positive approach to social science.
Another sense of the word positive is used to describe things which are defined by construction, as opposed to things which are defined "negatively", by the absence of something else. Examples are negative and positive rights, or negative and positive liberty.
In philosophy, normative is usually contrasted with positive, descriptive or explanatory when describing types of theories, beliefs, or statements. Descriptive (or constative) statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements, on the other hand, affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
Moving on to the definition of immorality, I reject the definition stated by Vulcanlogic, and present my own.
Morality is s system of value judgements based on a overlying set of social norms. Therefore, immortality is inconsistancy with these judgements.
I am now open for questions and clarifications.
[EDIT] Duh, changed immortality to immorality. I noticed when kaijin said it. =\ |
Lord Vulkas Mormonus
Posts: 1423/4541 |
I haven't read most of this thread, jsut the original few posts, so forgive me if I repeat some already said points.
How I define an opinion: And opinion is what you believe to be correct, for instance, Spartan holds the opinion that to be bi is morally okay. Doesn't mean it is, doesn't mena it isn't, that's not the issue at hand.
I alos believe that there are three states to an opinion. Correct opinions(I am awesome) medium opinions(digital watches are better than analog), and false opinions(Superman 64 is a great game). Thus, I conclude that opinions should only be either correct, or medium. If they are false, they should be corrected, and that freedom of opinion isn't necccesarilly a good thing.
Now to read the rest of the thread so that I can comment on that...
Consider it read. I think that this contributing towards a thread is one of the right/wrong opinions. Added humor, posted, continued on discussion merely for his benefit, ect. All is okay in the world of Xeogaming.
Now for that of the thief. I define bad(or immoral) as anything that causes more harm to the people that are not the doers, than good. Hurting more than it helps. Thievery not only hurts the thief, because if prevents him from ever learningto generate money on his own, but it hurts the thieved because of not only the emotional problems, but the fact that they lost a lot of things that they liked. More is lost than is gained. |
Logos
Posts: 199/641 |
Originally posted by Xeios
Originally posted by Logos
For example, it is my opinion that .SK is not contributing to this thread. One cannot say that my opinion regarding .SK's thread contribution is right or wrong, namely because it's my opinion. Right and wrong are statements meant for questions like 1+1=2.
Though one could surely say that the argument insinuated by your opinion is popularly incorrect as he added a bit of humor to the thread whilst you only said that his humor(in your opinion) was inappropriate.
Just to clarify, terms like "correct" and "incorrect" are not normative statements, they are positive statements. To provide yet another example, one wouldn't say killing is incorrect, they would say killing is wrong or immoral or whatsnot. Sorry if I didn't make clear what I defined a opinion as, but now I will get to the point.
For the purpose of this debate, I define an opinion as a normative statement. I for one cannot see any instances that opinion is not a normative statement, so anyone feel free to debate my definition.
[EDIT] Corrected ambiguous usage of "it." |
Xeios
Posts: 1687/2954 |
Originally posted by Logos
For example, it is my opinion that .SK is not contributing to this thread. One cannot say that my opinion regarding .SK's thread contribution is right or wrong, namely because it's my opinion. Right and wrong are statements meant for questions like 1+1=2.
Though one could surely say that the argument insinuated by your opinion is popularly incorrect as he added a bit of humor to the thread whilst you only said that his humor(in your opinion) was inappropriate. |
Logos
Posts: 168/641 |
Originally posted by wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
# public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
# a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
# the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
# the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
# impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
For example, it is my opinion that .SK is not contributing to this thread. One cannot say that my opinion regarding .SK's thread contribution is right or wrong, namely because it's my opinion. Right and wrong are statements meant for questions like 1+1=2. |
Banned
Posts: 2565/-3459 |
Originally posted by Seticus
Originally posted by Jedi Master Desroth
I hardly believe that .SK is contributing toward this thread, so my question is... Why does he assume that opinion must be either right or wrong, when opinion can be also be a neutral as well?
How is being completely neutral on a subject an oppinion? Sounds like a lack of an oppinion, to me. 
Jedi Master Desroth
Posts: 454/569 |
I know this is a really lame example, but it gets the point across... Bakura from Yugioh World of Memories *the older looking thief Bakura from the past* carries a spirit that is good, but uses it for evil. He says that if all it takes to command a good spirit is to fight for justice, then he can fight for his own type of justice (albeit that he is actually fighting for revenge and power, but that is what he believes is justice).
Morals vary from person to person. Someone who finds nothing wrong with commiting crimes and stealing things, and actually steals things and commits crimes, would not see himself as a criminal (someone who is morally and criminally wrong), but rather as someone who is normal. The rest of "civilized" society would see him as being a criminal. A good example that you brought up was Robin Hood. He was not raised to be a thief, but he finds it perfectly okay to steal from people (although they are rich and dont give money to the poor, it is still viewed as wrong by the "civilized" upper class of that time). You do not play god when you have different morals from the rest of the society you live in, you simply live your life by what you know is right and wrong.
Morals: What you personally know to be right and wrong based on your experiences, your upbringing, or status in society.
Another example would be something like this:
People in Eroupe go nude at almost all of their beaches since they do not find the human body offensive or vulgar to be seen unclothed in public on a beach. If they came to America and went to the beach here, assuming they do not know about american beaches which is highly likely in some parts of Eroupe, they would come out onto the beach naked. To the foreign person who is naked, he/she thinks that this a perfectly acceptable thing to do, while the americans on the beach would be highly offended and call the cops to arrest this naked person for indecent exposure. Now then, based on the morals that both parties hold, we can see both are totally different on the same topic (Being naked on a beach). Eroupeans dont find it wrong at all to be naked on a beach, while us americans find it totally offensive. |
Rauni
Posts: 1009/1351 |
Originally posted by Jedi Master Desroth
In short: Morality is what you believe to be right and wrong. If I was raised as a thief and taught to steal, I wouldnt think what I was doing was wrong, but the rest of society would view me as being morally wrong.
But that is the problem. Your thieving would be considered immortal due to that you take what item from the rightful owner to yourself. And by going that way, you are basically saying that you are God himself as well. However, if you were born and raised as the thief from the day you were born, then it is would be a different story. Also, in Robin Hood's case, (even through he is fictional.) he also steal from the rich but in order to give them to the poor so that they lived for another day.
And not only that morality is what you believe is to be right or wrong, but if someone kill a innocent in cold blood to "save" someone, would that be morally right? Morality is something we can't say it to ourselves, because if we believe that morality is whatever our decisions to make to be "right," we would be already powerful then we were before. We may even be inhuman as well!
I don't believes we tell what our moral decision is, it is the choice of how other people can see it either as the act of kindness or the betrayal and hatred. They can either sing praises of your heroic action or they can spill bad information and name calling you.
And something for .SK - If what you said is true:
I hardly believe that .SK is contributing toward this thread, so my question is... Why does he assume that opinion must be either right or wrong, when opinion can be also be a neutral as well? If I supported that restriction of Human Cloning, as opposed to banning them completely or supporting to copy an exact replica, how is this for either good, bad, for better, or for worse? |
Banned
Posts: 2517/-3459 |
My definition of an oppinion.
Oppinion - A definitive statement that includes the words "Good" "bad" "right" or "wrong" or any words meaning these things, such as "Better" or "Worse".
|
Jedi Master Desroth
Posts: 453/569 |
Science and the general population are afraid of the unknown that they choose to put labels on everything and try to make sense of things that you can not label.
Homosexuality is feeling a attraction to the same sex and being with them in love. The term Homosexuality is 2 terms, Homo meaning same and sexuality meaning to pertain to or be about sex and or being in love with someone sexually/what gender you like to be with. How is there any form of chemical imbalance in this equation? If it is a imbalance, how come there isnt a pill to fight homosexuality? We have pills to fight everything from aches and pains to depression, but yet we cant make a pill to cure homosexuality? Ill tell you why! Homosexuality has nothing to do with chemical imbalances, it is about who you chose to love. Science is afraid of anything different and they try to cover it up with lies.
That is just my opinion on the matter. My mothers best friend is a lesbian. I have asked her why she is a lesbian, and she said it is becuase all the men in her life have treated her like shit and the only person who actually loved her was her girlfriend. They both liked eachother alot, and eventually became lovers. Now you cant tell me that a "chemical imbalance" occured because all the men she went out with treated her like dirt. Im not buying it for a instant.
But back to the original topic. Morals are what you believe it is. Good and evil are merely words that carry a meaning that we place on them. The terrorists see themselves as good guys, while we view them as bad guys. Homosexuality is only immoral if that is what you believe. Back to my mothers friend, she basically runs a small christian church for gays and straights, though christians and catholic based religons say that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell. There is no exact line in the bible that says this, but the power hungry bishops of the time wanted to stamp out everything that could possible contradict them and rise up to them by saying to the uneducated masses the being in love with the same sex was wrong in the eyes of god and you would be sent to hell.
In short: Morality is what you believe to be right and wrong. If I was raised as a thief and taught to steal, I wouldnt think what I was doing was wrong, but the rest of society would view me as being morally wrong. |
Spartan
Posts: 1212/1569 |
No it is not...I would have to do more research to give you a solid facts about what determines I have heard chemical Imbalance, Faulty Genetics...I dont think its immoral but thats my opinion as one of the few actual Bi people.. |
Pockets
Posts: 657/838 |
The attacks in caps was meant to stress the difference between a person
attacking someone elses position or opinion for no reason than to be malicious,
as opposed to have a discussion for the sake of discussion.
go back to Master Desroths first post where he specifically states, "first post
should at least say what you think an opinion is, stating facts and such."
Morality cannot not also be defined simply by decribing it as an adherence to
authority. Frequently a moral choice defies authority. Let me ask you a
question we were debating in my class.
Is homosexuality immoral? |
Logos
Posts: 140/641 |
Originally posted by geeogree
Well, I feel like I might as well step in and say my piece.
So many of todays issues no longer have a black and white, true or false answer. We can no longer declare social issues as completely right or completely wrong. People always find grey areas or theoretical situations that change the "truth" of something.
No opinion is right or wrong, but more or less informed. And even then, my informed opinion is based on my interpretation of the information I have received. Any other person could get that same information and see it as meaning something else.
I think people care too much about the opinions of others, or react too strongly when an opinion that differs from theirs is announced.
Who cares if someone else thinks that x band is better than y band, or whatever it is. If you think something, what someone else thinks doesn't make what you think any more or less true.
I agree with geeogree on this point, and he doesn't need to define opinion, it's just what an individual or group thinks, one can look it up if they want, it's not a contraversial term. He states his opinion concerning an opinion quite clearly, if I might note. I don't like people tossing oACT ut the word "moral" with such levity, as morality is simply the adherrence to authority. Good and bad are "grey" terms, my idea of good may be different from another person's. And to Pockets, just a question: shouldn't you be critically thinking in your critical thinking class? ATTACKS (in big caps) isn't too different from "calmly debating," it's just how you interpret the meanings and context of how they are used. |
Pockets
Posts: 656/838 |
A few things. First. Geeogree, I must point out that you broke the first rule of
this debate. You just jumped in with your opinion without first defining your
understanding of the term "opinion."
Second. I believe an opinion to be a belief held by an individual.
Third. Spartan. As I've been learning in my critical thinking class, questioning
someones opinion about something is actually a good thing. Now if one
actually ATTACKS someones opinion that's one thing, but calmly debating and
questioning is a good basis for conversation. Also, the questioning of beliefs is
the most important part of critical thinking.
That's what Socrates was actually most famous for. Someone would state a
belief or opinion and he would then question it until he poked out all the holes in
their arguments and either proved their belief was incorrect, or at the least could
use some redefining, or shown that their belief was correct.
And on a sort of moral debate Spartan, are people really completely entitled to
their own opinion? It's a murky and dangerous area of critical thinking called,
"Subjectivism." Say I am of the opinion that to me murdering anyone over the age
of 60 is perfectly morally right and aceptable. I mean they're old anyway, make
room for new generations.
If I hold that opinion, does that make it right?
on a side note, I LOVE a good debate. =) |
Spartan
Posts: 1210/1569 |
The opinion is yours...people tailor to fit their beliefs and misconceptions and ignorance on a topic...
Opinion bashing is ridiculous..hell when two people get into arguements over such things it drives me nuts...specially people who have no clue what the topic is yet they need to come in and interject their little bit of opinion into the convo...
I will end on this.
Everyone is titled to an opinion..whether I decide to aknowledge your opinion is up to me...
|
geeogree
Posts: 183/246 |
Well, I feel like I might as well step in and say my piece.
So many of todays issues no longer have a black and white, true or false answer. We can no longer declare social issues as completely right or completely wrong. People always find grey areas or theoretical situations that change the "truth" of something.
No opinion is right or wrong, but more or less informed. And even then, my informed opinion is based on my interpretation of the information I have received. Any other person could get that same information and see it as meaning something else.
I think people care too much about the opinions of others, or react too strongly when an opinion that differs from theirs is announced.
Who cares if someone else thinks that x band is better than y band, or whatever it is. If you think something, what someone else thinks doesn't make what you think any more or less true. |
Cteno
Posts: 190/3416 |
*Applauds Seticus*
That's probably the most sense anybody has made in a good LONG time. I agree fully.
I hate how if you have a different opinion than other people and they completely bash you for it. I mean, that's why they call it an OPINION! It's your reflection on the whole thing, NOT THEIRS. |
Rauni
Posts: 1002/1351 |
While I often give out my opinion, I often get a dumb reply back instead. Sometime, I even get a same reply back instead.
"While death penalty is legal, it still falls under as an act of immoral and some evidence can be planted as to get someone a death penalty without a problem."
"Dude, you know that every CSI or the trail will have very long searches and will fix the puzzles together."
"Say that to when an evidence is MISSING from a crime scene, and no where to be found. Then you would instead kill an innocent because of your legalizing death penalty."
"But we still have through searches and will solve the crime."
"Come on, ANY excuses can be made up by that. What kind of opinion is that when all you can say is just one thing, that doesn't meant anything to people worldwide? Have you explain more clearly on why we should have legal death penalty, I wouldn't mind if you explain more instead of "closely-watched searches" because like I said: One missing evidence, you can die from it.
"But we can still have team search and find the missing evidence."
"Oh god... Missing as in you can't find it. Missing as ANYONE can't find it."
What is so good about opinion when all people can do is just focus on ONE thing. Opinion are meant to say everything from your mind, not just "OMFG, look at this guy's opinion. I'm gonna bash him now because he have no clue!" I mean, come on, it is an OPINION. There is no reason why people should have a bitch fit over it, because opinion is from someone's point of view, not your! |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
