PlayStation VR - PSVR Starter Pack - Out Now - Only £259.99

Why haven't we updated Hugo's software to accept that people have different opinions?

Preezy wrote:Why haven't we updated Hugo's software to accept that people have different opinions?

How many times do we have to have this discussion.

Saying someone's opinion is wrong might well just be classed as disagreement. Which you just said is the nature of opinions.

On the other hand, maybe its my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Are you saying that opinion is wrong?

HSH28 wrote:

Preezy wrote:Why haven't we updated Hugo's software to accept that people have different opinions?

How many times do we have to have this discussion.

Saying someone's opinion is wrong might well just be classed as disagreement. Which you just said is the nature of opinions.

On the other hand, maybe its my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Are you saying that opinion is wrong?

Because an opinion is just that, an opinion. It is in fact worth bo diddly squat. Get over yourself.

still wrote:Because an opinion is just that, an opinion. It is in fact worth bo diddly squat. Get over yourself.

Sorry but I'm not the one with the problem here. I never said anything was worth anything.

HSH28 wrote:

Preezy wrote:Why haven't we updated Hugo's software to accept that people have different opinions?

How many times do we have to have this discussion.

Saying someone's opinion is wrong might well just be classed as disagreement. Which you just said is the nature of opinions.

On the other hand, maybe its my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Are you saying that opinion is wrong?

Err but no, see above: 'Opinions can be wrong'. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong. Your's is your's, Chalky's is Chalky's, but both are equally worthless.

still wrote:Err but no, see above: 'Opinions can be wrong'. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong. Your's is your's, Chalky's is Chalky's, but both are equally worthless.

It can be misinformed and therefore wrong. I'd also take argument against the fact that all opinions are equally worthless, if you really believe that then that's very, very strange.

To be fair, Chalkys opinion on Rez is completely shithouse.

That's just a fact.

Fact.

HSH28 wrote:

still wrote:Err but no, see above: 'Opinions can be wrong'. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong. Your's is your's, Chalky's is Chalky's, but both are equally worthless.

It can be misinformed and therefore wrong. I'd also take argument against the fact that all opinions are equally worthless, if you really believe that then that's very, very strange.

Sorry but this isn't the 1800s! If you want a separate argument about the cultural significance of x being greater than that of y then that is a completely separate arguement. Yes, of course, by definition, all opinions are equally worthless as they are but an individual's opinion. If you really find that strange then there is no hope for you to be honest. Unless you are daft enough to believe in God then there is no yardstick in the universe to measure things against. I actually don't believe you are that daft - you just haven't thought things through to the end.

still wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

still wrote:Err but no, see above: 'Opinions can be wrong'. By definition, an opinion cannot be wrong. Your's is your's, Chalky's is Chalky's, but both are equally worthless.

It can be misinformed and therefore wrong. I'd also take argument against the fact that all opinions are equally worthless, if you really believe that then that's very, very strange.

Sorry but this isn't the 1800s! If you want a separate argument about the cultural significance of x being greater than that of y then that is a completely separate arguement. Yes, of course, by definition, all opinions are equally worthless as they are but an individual's opinion. I you really find that strange then there is no hope for you to be honest. Unless you are daft enough to believe in God then there is no yardstick in the universe to measure things against. I actually don't believe you are that daft - you just haven't thought things through to the end.

Like I said, very, very strange.

Must be lovely to still be living in a pre-Einstein world. Everything is relative Hugo, nothing is absolute. Just the way things are I'm afraid. Scarey huh.

HSH28 wrote:
On the other hand, maybe its my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Are you saying that opinion is wrong?

That would be a self defeating hypothesis. He wouldn't need to say that that opinion is wrong: you've made that point yourself, by opining that opinions can be wrong. Yours would not be excluded from that.

Like saying 'everything I say is a lie'.

Poser wrote:

HSH28 wrote:
On the other hand, maybe its my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Are you saying that opinion is wrong?

That would be a self defeating hypothesis. He wouldn't need to say that that opinion is wrong: you've made that point yourself, by opining that opinions can be wrong. Yours would not be excluded from that.

Like saying 'everything I say is a lie'.

For goodness sake, don't blow his circuit board! He isn't programmed to take this kind of stuff.

Poser wrote:

HSH28 wrote:
On the other hand, maybe its my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Are you saying that opinion is wrong?

That would be a self defeating hypothesis. He wouldn't need to say that that opinion is wrong: you've made that point yourself, by opining that opinions can be wrong. Yours would not be excluded from that.

Like saying 'everything I say is a lie'.

It doesn't have to be excluded, in fact the whole concept relies upon the fact it isn't excluded. It's not really the same as the liars paradox either.

If you really wanted to attack the statement you'd be better off trying to argue that the definition of opinion isn't itself subject to opinions...you'd be wrong, but its a better argument to make.

still wrote:Must be lovely to still be living in a pre-Einstein world. Everything is relative Hugo, nothing is absolute. Just the way things are I'm afraid. Scarey huh.

That's just insane. Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't apply to this in anyway whatsoever. And no I'm not living in the 1800's because I think that.

EDIT - Actually I'm pretty sure Einstein didn't believe that relativity applied to everything either, go on, look it up.

I give in! Sorry but you just aren't very subtle in your thinking at all. As a parting shot, have you thought of looking at, say, the OED's definition of the word 'opinion'? where I think you will find you have no longer a leg to stand on. But, as invariably ends the conversation......, never change Hugo, may you live on in your belief that you know more than the rest of us. (Fool.)

Edit: posted in error.

Re your edit, you'd be utterly wrong on that but you keep believing what you want!. Relativity goes right through everything from bottom to top, by it's very nature it has to. I would have thought anyone would have understood that, no?

still wrote:Re your edit, you'd be utterly wrong on that but you keep believing what you want!. Relativity goes right through everything from bottom to top, by it's very nature it has to. I would have thought anyone would have understood that, no?

“Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.”

—Albert Einstein
Theoretical Physicist, Philosopher, Nobel Prize Winner

HSH28 wrote:

still wrote:Re your edit, you'd be utterly wrong on that but you keep believing what you want!. Relativity goes right through everything from bottom to top, by it's very nature it has to. I would have thought anyone would have understood that, no?

“Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.”

—Albert Einstein
Theoretical Physicist, Philosopher, Nobel Prize Winner

I'm afraid that Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher. Perhaps spend some time reading post Einstein philosophy?

still wrote:I'm afraid that Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher. Perhaps spend some time reading post Einstein philosophy?

Nope. Also not sure what that statement has to do with your previous reply. In fact I am sure, absolutely nothing.

HSH28 wrote:

still wrote:I'm afraid that Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher. Perhaps spend some time reading post Einstein philosophy?

Nope. Also not sure what that statement has to do with your previous reply. In fact I am sure, absolutely nothing.

Well in that case, if you truly cannot understand, then clearly there is nothing more to say. We end up right back at square one, 'my name is Hugo and I know better than everyone else'!